Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Going Behind Closed Doors in Christian Right Households

By Jeremy Adam Smith, Public Eye. Posted April 11, 2008.


To really understand the politics of the Christian Right, we need to look not only to public activity, but to private matters.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Jeremy Adam Smith

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Models of idealized family structure lie metaphorically at the heart of our politics," writes linguist George Lakoff in his 2002 book Moral Politics. "Our beliefs about the family exert a powerful influence over our beliefs about what kind of society we should build."

Certainly, many Christian Right leaders would agree with him.

People who make it their business to track and fight the Right tend, with good reason, to focus on public, political activity, but the Christian Right sees the private home as a major arena of political struggle and a showcase for the world they want to live in. "These homes are the source of ordered liberty, the fountain of real democracy, the seedbed of virtue," write long-time activists Allan C. Carlson and Paul T. Mero in their new book, The Natural Family: A Manifesto.

The Natural Family attempts to distill a quarter century of "family values" organizing into a unified vision of social and political change in a bid to rejuvenate their flagging movement. It reflects a decade of international collaborations of Religious Right organizations through the World Congress of Families, organized by Carlson's Illinois-based think tank The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society. First held in Prague in 1997, the congresses convene right-wing organizations from around the globe "to affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society" -- and also to fight United Nations family planning initiatives.

As Carlson and Mero frame it, the single-family home -- awash with enough sentiment to drown an entire city -- might be the closest thing the Christian Right has to an actually existing utopian experiment. Examining these ideas can reveal a great deal about the psychology of the Christian Right as well as the visionary goals its adherents pursue.

But recent research into the daily lives of evangelicals also reveals the degree to which their ideal is vulnerable to social and economic forces that all American parents must confront. I believe Lakoff is correct to argue that the Strict Father conception of parenting -- which stresses authoritarian discipline and patriarchal control -- is key to understanding Christian Right politics, but his rubric might obscure[JAS1] the ways in which movement ideals are evolving in response to changing social conditions. Even as Christian Right leaders are "talking Right," as University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox puts it, some of the evangelicals who form the base of their movement are "walking Left" and embracing a more moderate way of political and family life. This creates a fissure in the Christian Right that no manifesto can close.

Villages are for Liberals

The Christian Right and evangelical Christians are not one in the same -- "Survey research shows that 70 percent of evangelicals don't identify with the Religious Right," reports Rice University sociologist Michael Lindsay -- but conservative evangelicals have been largely responsible for developing and promoting the anti-gay, anti-feminist "family values" agenda that has powerfully shaped the culture and platform of the Republican Party. The larger conservative evangelical movement is the cultural sea in which the Christian Right swims.

Thus if we want to understand what the ideal Christian Right home looks like, we must turn to the truly staggering amount of childrearing advice conservative evangelical preachers and pundits dispense to followers.

An evangelical home takes the Bible as the basis for all its rules and relations -- as opposed to the empirical evidence that shapes mainstream childrearing advice. "I don't believe the scientific community is the best source of information on proper parenting techniques," writes Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in The New Dare to Discipline, which has sold millions of copies since the first edition was published in 1971. "The best source of guidance for parents can be found in the wisdom of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which originated with the Creator and has been handed down generation by generation from the time of Christ."

As a result of this adherence to a holy text that cannot be changed and must be obeyed, the ideal Christian Right home is a place of authoritarian hierarchy. When University of Texas sociologists John P. Bartkowski and Christopher G. Ellison compared dozens of secular parenting books with conservative Protestant parenting manuals, they found that a literal interpretation of the Bible's childrearing advice contributed directly to a worship of authority in all spheres of life, including the political.

They also found that conservative evangelical parenting gurus disagreed with mainstream counterparts on virtually every issue. According to their study, secular, science-based parenting advice emphasizes personality adjustment, empathy, cooperation, creativity, curiosity, egalitarian relations between parents, nonviolent discipline, and self-direction.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: christianity, christian right, religion and politics, evangelism

Jeremy Adam Smith is senior editor of Greater Good magazine and author of Twenty-First-Century Dad: How Stay-at-Home Fathers (and Breadwinning Moms) Are Transforming the American Family, forthcoming from Beacon Press. He is a frequent past contributor to AlterNet, as well as publications like The Nation, Mothering, Utne, and Wired.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Article
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Apr 11, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But...

When Lakoff described the strict father model, wasnt he refering to a dialectical stance and not actual parenting? The way I remember it, Lakoff aknowledges both stances (nurturant and strict father) to be present in everyone's mind, he didnt describe them as rigid parental structures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually, he did Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: Actually, he did Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» RE: Actually, he did Posted by: Xynyx
» you didn't post Posted by: e rice
Religion evolves
Posted by: Richard House on Apr 11, 2008 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the Bible is cherry-picked to adapt to the times. Christian ultra fundamentalism has no place in the modern world. The indoctrination techniques they use, subjection to stress and fatigue, social disruption, isolation and pressure, self criticism and humiliation, fear, anxiety, and paranoia, control of information and escalating commitment to the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. Four major objections to this: it misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, and because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, both a result and cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that faith is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» truth is truth but not always Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Cathyc... Posted by: Quannah
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: e rice
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: Quannah
I Tried
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Apr 11, 2008 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried to follow this article, but it's just too confusing.

First, the author says: The Christian Right and evangelical Christians are not one in the same -- "Survey research shows that 70 percent of evangelicals don't identify with the Religious Right,

Then, after that, he seems to use the terms Christian Right, evangelical, evangelical conservative, and Conservative Protestants interchangeably, as though there is no difference. Of course there are plenty of differences among various religious conservative, but it is what they have in common that is most important in understanding them.

As far as these wingers go, they all profess to follow Jesus, yet they pretty much ignore all of the bible after Jesus is born. All of this harsh attitude toward others, be they family, terrorists, or anything in between, comes right out of the Old Testament, not from the teachings of Jesus. When did Jesus ever say we should torture terrorists? Or beat children? The only exception, where they do get anything at all from the New Testament, is the Rapture, but then that doesn't really come from the bible anyway. It was indirectly derived from Revelation.

Makes one wonder, who would have an interest in taking something from the bible, distorting it, then making the distortion more popular among the "faithful" than the actual biblical text? Hmmm, the one entity with the most to gain from popularizing a distortion of the bible would be....the devil!

Even the Revelation, the original biblical text version, not the distorted "rapture" version, isn't the teachings of Jesus either, but visions seen by John. As Martin Luther stated, "Christ is neither taught nor known in it". Yet this is about the one section of the New Testament that modern conservative "Christians" actually care for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Tried Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I Tried Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I Tried Posted by: VZEQICVA
» then don't read it Posted by: e rice
» RE: then don't read it Posted by: Lauren
Religion remains a plague on humanity
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 11, 2008 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To assert that some supernatural Creator blinked the human family into existence is patently ridiculous -- but then so is all of religion. Belief in the supernatural remains perhaps the single most destructive human quality, arguably even more destructive than aggression because organized superstition perpetuates itself through many negative influences.

Soon scientists will pinpoint the precise psychological and perhaps even physical factors that contribute to human belief in the irrational, but until they do we all should demand:
-- An end to government participation in religion, including all tax breaks, laws, rules and policies based primarily on religion.
-- Tighter restrictions on proponents of superstition in using the mass media to promote those beliefs. Little old ladies have been bilked out of their Social Security pensions for long enough!
-- Laws aimed at restricting the ability of such groups to influence children under 18. Such indoctrination is child abuse and has caused untold psychological damage to children.

Because humans are still very much a work in progress, it's likely that religion will be with us a while longer. Even so, we should begin unshackling ourselves and our children from its unhealthy grasp and begin to live as free, rational beings on this planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here here! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Almost there. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Almost there. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: We get it, you're a howling bigot Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: another howling bigot Posted by: Intellect
» RE: another howling bigot Posted by: Lauren
» RE: not just Christians Posted by: Intellect
» communism Posted by: e rice
» RE: communism Posted by: abbadon2007
» Where Change Begins Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: communism Posted by: Longdream
» And you're crying again Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: And you're crying again Posted by: Lauren
» Soon scientists will pinpoint..... Posted by: Gilded_Truth
» RE: You are so right, Posted by: bitsfick
» But you are so wrong Posted by: LMNOP
» Here come more Christians Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: congratulations ssegallmd Posted by: Intellect
» RE: But you are so wrong Posted by: Intellect
» RE: You are so right, Posted by: Intellect
Who can argue
Posted by: 7 Levels on Apr 11, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the true basis of Christianity would be wonderful to follow. Forgiveness, doing unto others, turning the other cheek, tolerance... But it has NOTHING to do with the right wing who love war, money, and exclusion above all else.

And as far as Islam goes, I have not kind words for it's treatment of women and intolerance. Free speech trumps everything.

And if one can argue against Obama for his preacher's words, then the right wingers have to answer for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have said far worse.

GOP = HYPOCRITE and religion is as much as a tool for them as it is for Osama Bin Laden.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who can argue Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: Who can argue Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Who can argue Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Who can argue Posted by: carcinoid112
Christianity
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Apr 11, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly, after this summary, one can easily conclude that Christians - Right Wing ones, those who live in 'Bible-based' self-contained units, etc - are destructive little families.

To paraphrase: We are spiritual beings having human experiences. We are NOT humans who need a religious experience to be 'saved'.

It is pure fantasy to even consider that a particular religion - which will be tomorrow's mythology - is the end-all and be-all for humans. To even consider that an authoritarian religion is required for one to grow up properly is to ignore the entirety of human history before the advent of that made-up religion.

But that's precisely what Christians want us to do. Ignore all of history. All of science. And to especially ignore democracy and natural human behavior. All in favor of their fantasy. It's all about power and control over your mind.

I for one, am religion-free and god-free for 48 years. I recommend doing that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christianity Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: Christianity Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Christianity Posted by: Longdream
Dobson
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 11, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comparing James Dobson to people who discuss the material of switches to spank kids is like the comparison of koalas to snakes.

Dobson does not advocate spanking children for the sake of spanking children. Dobson attests that parents find it difficult to establish a consistent pattern of discipline and expectations for their children.

When children have no consistent pattern of discipline, they do what anyone would do, and impose their own patterns. This leads to conflict with parents. Such outbursts can end with the parents trying to impose their will by lashing out in frustration.

Dobson recognizes that such parents will spank their children. His stated goal is to help them to develop consistent approaches to discipline and realistic expectations of children's behaviour.

Dobson is careful to explain that the goals for the children's behavior be appropriate to their development, serve to build good character and that the children understand them. Dobson explicitly advocates reliance on the Bible and traditional religion as the source of the values to be taught to the children. He amplifies this by stating that the parents have an obligation to God to conduct themselves in this manner.

In Dobson's model, corporal punishment is judiciously and sparingly meted out to reinforce conformance with expected behaviour.

Although Dobson seems to think that all parents will face situations that warrant spanking, he emphasizes fairness, consistency and high expectations as goals for parents.

Dobson has not discovered the Philosopher's stone of child rearing, but has a valuable point of view and discussion of his work can often lead to a well thought out stance against spanking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dobson........... Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Dobson........... Posted by: robchapman
» RE: GODWIN'S LAW Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Dobson Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Dobson... is just plain SICK Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Dobson Posted by: carcinoid112
Seventy %
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 11, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article cites survey research that shows seventy per cent of evangelicals do not identify with the Conservative Christian political movement.

This is a very encouraging statistic. Seventy per cent of the target audience have resisted the blandishments of the Christian Right. This despite the GOP's high intensity effort to recruit them and President Bush's persistent political identification with the Christian Right.

The opportunity this opens for progressives is to establish dialogue and find common ground. I think we all agree that our affairs should be conducted with dignity, openness and decency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seventy % Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: robchapman
» RE: Bear shit... Posted by: carcinoid112
» A word from a friend Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Mother Theresa Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Mother Theresa Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Seventy % Posted by: Lauren
child rearing
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 11, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have four grown children, the youngest freshly gone from our common home.

I can well remember the exhaustion and sense of aloneness that I often felt when they were young and we were struggling to take care of them and ourselves.

Religion was a source of solace and comfort through those times. We shared stories from the Bible among the family and with close friends. My children learned to read and to aspire from this reading.

We went to divine service and felt that we were in a supportive and loving place.

The theological distinctions mean much less to me than the human contact of the congregation and the sense of humanity that I gleaned from reading the trials and tribulations of the biblical characters.

The poetry and imagery of the bible excite my imagination and provide a tremendous resource for an active and vibrant inner life.

The religious practices of the faith provide stability in my home and connection with the larger community of the faithful.

When reflecting on the hurly-burly of the day at home and at work, my inner life is a great joy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: child rearing Posted by: Ruperic
» RE: child rearing Posted by: robchapman
» RE: child rearing... And FSM Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Ruperic
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Longdream
» RE: child rearing and faith. Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: child rearing and faith. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: child rearing Posted by: robchapman
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Longdream
» RE: child rearing Posted by: robchapman
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Intellect
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Longdream
» RE: child rearing Posted by: robchapman
» RE: child rearing Posted by: Longdream
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Of course it's authoritarian
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 11, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course Christianity teaches submission to authority. Christianity is a program to condition the masses to be exploited by the masters of society. Every single bit of its teaching is designed to convince exploited people to accept that role.

They are taught that it is blessed to be meek, to be poor, and to be humble in stature. They are taught to work hard, to not complain, never to steal and never to lie. They are told that however unfair life appears, it is their privilege to suffer for Christ, God has a plan for them and that all wrongs will be righted in the next life.

And if master smacks them, they are to turn the other cheek and forgive him with a smile, to be longsuffering and slow to anger. They are to be grateful just to have food. They are always to see the good in all situations, and if they can't, they are to rest assured that God does. It's in his plan. Be happy that he is testing you like he did Job.

That, my friends, is slave mentality. And it begins with an authoritarian and patriarchal model in the home, which extends to the work place and to civil life. It is promulgated by people like George Bush and Pat Robertson who don't live or believe a lick of it. That's for you - human bovine, being exploited and being taught to accept it.

Is it a coincidence that this is EXACTLY what a master wants out of a slave? Figure it out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Of course it's authoritarian Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: Of course it's authoritarian Posted by: crazyquilt
» Of course it's political Posted by: LMNOP
Lead Us Out Of Bondage
Posted by: BAKslider on Apr 11, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spot on ssegallmd!

Plain as the nose on my face, Christianity is a religion for slaves. I'm not too sure about the Old Testament - seems that the Jews were trying to avoid slavery - at least their own.

A church down the block puts up little Biblical sayings and other chestnuts. The one they have up this week is spot on this issue:

"Bondage begins
Where obedience ends"

Typically sound Christian reasoning and logic. Back to your oars!

-Greg Forest

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lead Us Out Of Bondage Posted by: willymack
» Oh, that's not where bondage begins... Posted by: hurricane hugo
So what happens as foreclosures go on the rise and people are pushed into "villages"?
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 11, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebodies gotta wake these people out of the Donald Trump / James Dobson mentality. The Religious "right" is full of hypocrisy from health care to wars for oil to bankruptcy overhauls to you name it. Is there a real religious Left that can be taken seriously?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

article attempts to offer nuance
Posted by: kenhymes on Apr 11, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having spent a lot of time around all different kinds of Christians, I concur with the author that the rhetoric of pastors and writers from the fundie side is simplistic and authoritarian, while the behavior within families and communities is complex and diverse. In my experience, families who self-identify as evangelical conservative like to hear tough father talk, but in practice are much more like the rest of the culture. Conversely, many academic liberal families that like to hear whole-child, Montessori talk,in practice are more authoritarian than they care to acknowledge.

This is not to say that public ideas don't matter. Particularly at risk from literalist Bible-talk are gay teens, as they become the focus of bullying and discrimination in small towns.

But the left really needs to get a more nuanced and informed picture of what "Christians" are like. The reflexive bashing is just pointless and juvenile. Things are changing fast in churches, the right-wing rhetoric is being rapidly discredited, particularly among younger Christians. Success for progressive ideas and policies depends on alliances. This will be very uncomfortable for people on both sides of the religious-secular divide, but insults only delay the process of engagement.

I find it disheartening that so many are wilfully ignorant of what they describe as a central threat to our civil society. If churches are so dangerous (and mostly they are really pretty lame and tame, middle-of-the-road politically), then why the incuriosity, the broad brush thinking?

If we are about justice and love, then that includes everybody. If we are better, more pluralistic than exclusivist, one-path-only Christians, then why don't we sound like it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: article attempts to offer nuance Posted by: AppleMommie AZ
A Good Word for the Christian Family
Posted by: rcase on Apr 11, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a retired pastor I have observed hundreds, probably thousands of families, most of whom would be labeled evangelical. There have been problems, of course, but on the whole these families have produced mature, well-adjusted contributing members of society. When I contrast these families with the rest of society I wonder how is it that it seems not to be so obvious that the contrast between the Christian home and other homes is so great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is a false word, pastor Posted by: Gilded_Truth
» RE: It is a false word, pastor Posted by: robchapman
» RE: It is a false word, pastor Posted by: Intellect
» RE: The false words: "you all" Posted by: Longdream
» Here we go again Posted by: LMNOP
» My "drivel" will continue Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: robchapman
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» You're a pip, longdream Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: So, tell me, Junior Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: robchapman
is called PRIVACY for a REASON...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 11, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vice & PRIVACY
The Thieves of Virtue: without the PUBLIC WILL for PRIVACY, criminalizing vice functionally aborts representative government.

really, VICE is contextual:
* gender
* ethnicity
* age
* race

all pay a part in morals. but VICE, should never be *criminalized*, especially in a nation where PRIVACY has been abolished.

Who is PERFECT ENOUGH to represent THE PEOPLE or a populist reform when there is neither privacy nor the Will to preserve privacy in society?
Who stands *for the People* when Money & Power exert corrosive controls to extend their oppression & corruption? Nobody is immune to *vice* as VICE is about how ONE PERSON privately & personally determines *how to enjoy their own body*...

Naked Truth: Civil Rights & CNN coverage of "F.B.I. biometric database - 'Server in the Sky'"

thoughts on 'The Fear Factory'

"corruption is why we win":
"Yell Fire!": Bush to freeze peace activist assets? - Executive Order to "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq"

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data

thoughts on the new US Project Hostile Intent (PHI)

Watching the "Ownership Society": follow-ups on Shareholder Surveillance

InfraGard & O'Reilly? Olbermann interviewed O'Reilly caller who was contacted by "Fox News security": did O'Reilly mean INFRAGARD representatives?

"FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'"
===
11.Apr.08 Cops and Former Secret Service Agents Ran Black Ops on Green Groups
Meet the private security firm that spied on Greenpeace and other environmental outfits for its corporate clients. A tale of intrigue, infiltration, & dumpster-diving.

Mother Jones has exposed that a security firm run by ex Secret Service agents spied on Greenpeace, Fenton Communications, the Center for Food Safety, & others...
The smoking gun documents show that Beckett Brown International (BBI), collected confidential records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these groups & produced intelligence reports for public relations firms & major corporations involved in environmental controversies.

BBI also conducted background checks for the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm; provided "protective services" for the NRA; handled "crisis management" for the Gallo wine company; engaged in "information collection" for Wal-Mart.

... Also listed as clients in BBI records: Halliburton & Blackwater.

===

BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is...
Posted by: Sy Ence on Apr 11, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
religion can't keep to itself. It's inability to want to adapt or change, in other words, evolve, keeps it at odds with a (mostly) secular society.

As a non-believing father of a 3 year old, who raises his son while his mother works, I find a lot of Christian ideals on child-rearing abhorrent. To think someone would abuse their child in the name of discipline, or god...no wonder people are immune to violence, but find sex or sexuality repulsive. Their minds are warped.

No, the real question we should be asking is-Is it time religion stopped getting a free pass?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem is... Posted by: tap17x
» RE: The problem is... Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: _________is not a sacred cow Posted by: carcinoid112
Terrible Twos
Posted by: ohb0b on Apr 11, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a parent who lived through the "terrible twos" I have to agree with this point:

I wrote to Rosemond in an email and asked him to elaborate. "In my estimation," he replied, "toddlerhood is a pathological condition that demands 'cure,' accomplished through a combination of powerful love and powerful discipline. ... The toddler mindset and the sociopathic mindset are one and the same: 'What I want, I deserve to have; the ends justify the means; and no one has a right to stand in my way.' This is a reflection of human nature."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Infantile tantrums Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Infantile tantrums Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Terrible Twos Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Terrible Twos Posted by: e rice
» RE: Terrible Twos Posted by: jackyD
» RE: Terrible Twos Posted by: Intellect
Simple Solution:
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 11, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I Don't want to know, what my Political Candidate, does in his/her bedroom; or what if any, church they go to. It's none of my business.(As long as it's legal, no human or animal sacrific, kiddy-porn, ect)

Everyone should have the right to attend/or not any Church of their choosing. The problem is when people mix church and state. There should be a large BOLD line, not to be crossed.
No Tax-Dollars, to ANY religous group!
Tax exempt status, for the actual house of worship only.
No tax-exempt status, for any place of worship that gets involved in politics in ANY way.
No voting in Churches!!!

The problem Obama has with Rev. Wright, is that Obama put Rev. Wright on his Political Campaign! Obama made that choose. Now, anything Rev. Wright has said, or done is 'FAIR' game!

There was a story just yesterday, on Newsmax, a Civil Rights Leader, who Marched beside MLK, was just convicted (he was a Reverand) for having sexually abused his daughter since she was six, and raping her since she was 9. His justification for it, was supposedly from the Bible, a parent has a duty to give their children sexual orientation, and education!

Unfortunately, it proves the Bible can be Perverted to say anything you want, to justify all kinds of behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WHAT THE HELL?? Posted by: carcinoid112
Who says there is one right way???
Posted by: bgamett on Apr 11, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am mainly addressing the issue of parenting. The way these right-wingers (as illustrated in the article) adhere to raising their children is, to me, appalling. Each and every child is different and your parenting should alter to allow for those differences. One child may need more parent interaction and praise while another may be more independent. The Christian framework for parenting, and for the family in general, is too rigid.

I am an educator, and in schools, we are asked to celebrate diversity in learning styles and we are asked to adapt teaching styles and curriculum for kids. Why should parents not be asked to do at least the same?

I, for one, refuse to strike my child with a switch if she should get out of bed. That is ridiculous. She may be scared or cold or just need some mommy snuggle time. She should not be penalized for that. Yes, parents need authority, but they don't need to be tyrants and dictators.

My husband and I are the parents of 2 young daughters and we are somewhat new members of the Presbyterian church in our community. However, I am currently grappling with our situation as I see gender roles and unflexable parenting woven into the fabric of belief there. I want my kids (daughters, mind you) to have an opinion and a sense of self. I'm not sure conservative Christian beliefs allow for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why the need for a church? Posted by: Cathyc
"...children are born evil...
Posted by: Elmo409 on Apr 11, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
children are born evil and can become good only through a Godly mixture of love and punishment
Presumably the idea expressed in the phrase "beat the devil out".

And, if that were not bad enough, there's this little gem "The campaign to end child abuse too often abuses families,". The recent/ongoing news story regarding the FLDS group in Texas has generated numerous comments suggesting that if childhood marriage is part of the belief structure of this religion and that it is wrong of the state to interfere. Looks like it's just a short jump from "You can't make me believe in evolution" to "You can't stop me from getting my 13 year old wife pregnant." Presumably the offspring will have the devil beaten out of them at an early age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Original Sin
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Apr 11, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, when Christians talk about original sin, they are referring to EATING FRUIT! I'm always amazed, and would be amused if it weren't so destructive, that the same people who believe it's just fine for god to send people to eternal damnation and suffering for what ONE WOMAN AND ONE MAN did thousands of years ago think Rev. Wright shouldn't have called on god to damn all of America for racial discrimination.

So, as a direct result of Adam and Eve's crime, the Christian god condemns all human beings to the tortures of hell. All people are evil, but if they believe the right thing and repent, they can be saved. Here it is in a nutshell (somehow, this seems appropriate):

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

There you have it. I didn't compose this definition, but I wish I had. Remember, once again, people suffer for eternity, in the most unimaginable pain, because of one instance of disobedience that led to eating one piece of fruit by the first two humans.

WOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Original Sin Posted by: e rice
» RE: Original Sin Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Original Sin. Um..... Posted by: Longdream
» orthodox Posted by: e rice
» RE: orthodox Posted by: Longdream
» RE: orthodox Posted by: e rice
» RE: orthodox Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Original Sin Posted by: carcinoid112
But they Know
Posted by: Fauxtaographer on Apr 11, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in a fundamentalist church. Basic Baptist, way down south, a long time ago. We studied the Devil, that was about all the preacher ever talked about or prayed about. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were losers, the Devil had not only the hindmost, but EVERYbody. A few people would go to heaven at the End of Time (probably later that day), but all the rest would burn in hell. All in all, the Ghost was only Smoke (from you know where), Jesus was a blue-eyed blond kid, and God was even worse than the Devil.

That's why I became an Episcopalian. They didn't take that seriously - until women and gays showed up. Well, it is a long story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If your kids talk back, kill em!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 11, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your wife messes around, get a bunch of friends and smash her to death with rocks. If your kid is gay (or anybody else you know) kill em!

If you think that little neighborhood chick is hot, go ahead and rape her. Then you can pay her dad a few hundred bucks and he'll force her to marry you.

BTW, you do eat Kosher, don't you? Just in case nobody has told you, there are a couple of hundred other laws and regulations you have to practice and obey (toss out those polyester blends, folks) or you're going to hell. It IS the unalterable word of GOD, you know - can't pick and choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BTW, I'm going to hell Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: BTW, I'm going to hell Posted by: Lauren
Theocracies
Posted by: willymack on Apr 11, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't work.
They've been tried
Many times
And have failed
Every time
Read history
And enrich your mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Theocracies... TROLL alert! Posted by: carcinoid112
Actually, all polls reveal progress on this issue
Posted by: jeremyadamsmith on Apr 11, 2008 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello. This is the author of the article. All polls have shown progress on this issue--all of them. According to Gallup polls, in 1982, only 34 percent of Americans “believed that homosexuality was an acceptable alternative lifestyle”--that's the number I cite. Today, according to Gallup, that number is 48 percent. Same question, same organization.

My editors at Public Eye inserted the People for the American Way poll numbers because they felt it added nuance to the discussion, to show how far we've come from never talking about gay relationships to actually seriously considering civil unions. It wasn't intended to be a one to one comparison--though I can see how it might be read that way--but only to reveal the degree to which discourse has shifted.

But rest assured, my friend, Americans are more accepting of homosexuality today that than have been at any point in the past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: disingenuous manipulation of poll data *Pfeh!*
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 11, 2008 11:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually what's disingenuous is the intentional ignorance of the classic behavior pattern of the Xtian fundie or conservative: the ability to overlook one's own liberalistic fetishes while simultaneously browbeating others for those same things. The Xtian is a craven contortionist skilled at self-delusion and oblique self-deception and extreme pathological hypocrisy.

You even admit as much in your final sentence. A human being with integrity can't make such perverse philosophical contortions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the word is tolerance Posted by: Intellect
» RE: the word is tolerance Posted by: Lauren
» RE: the word is tolerance Posted by: Lauren
RE: disingenuous manipulation of poll data
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 13, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the conclusion "people are more accepting of homosexuality in 2007 than they were in 1982" to be valid, you'd need to run the same poll on a demographically similar sample of respondents.

This is not a valid conclusion. The demographics may have changed in the thirty years between the polls, making the replication of the poll impossible.

If the demographic change was an increase in the number of gay tolerant people, the second poll would be valid.

However, survey research indisputably shows that in comparison of like demographic groups, tolerance of gay life-styles has risen precipitously in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: false dichotomy... um no.
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 11, 2008 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, most Xtian fundies, a.k.a. "practicing [X]tians," absolutely DO raise their families that way.

You may think of yourself as an exception but some of us know all too well the real way these people "raise up" kids. You'll get no pass or sympathy from those of us who escaped that cult. Stick your head in the sand about this or go read the gazillions of discussion boards and support groups of ex-Xtians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: false dichotomy
Posted by: Intellect on Apr 13, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bible prescribes stoning to death for children who are habitually disobedient or disrespectful.

Christian child rearing classes supported by thousands of churches in America suggest using the rod (and they describe how to make one) on children as young as infants who cry to be suckled when hungry!

"The Rev. Arthur Allen and five other people are under arrest and 41 children have been taken from their families and put in foster care amid allegations that Allen directed members of the congregation of his Atlanta church, the House of Prayer, to beat their children.
The children range in age from infants to 17-year-olds, according to the Division of Family and Children Services. The agency has placed the children in foster homes rather than group shelters until the investigation determines whether it is safe to return them to their families.
DFCS officials said children told them that when they misbehaved, they would be taken to the church for discipline, which would be organized by the pastor. Two or three adults would hold them down while two or three others would beat them until the pastor said to stop, according to the children's accounts.
The agency took 19 children into custody over a two-week period, then Tuesday took 22 more and arrested the six people. The six were arraigned today and all pleaded not guilty and refused an attorney.
"We believe in corporal punishment for unruly children," Allen said during a meeting outside the church Friday night, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "If something is reported in here, the parent saying they cannot handle the child, then I suggest they give the child a whipping."
He said that the Bible teaches that it is right to punish children by beating them, so they will learn how wrong it is to misbehave.
................

Church members said that the pastor was just following the teachings of the Bible, which they said directs parents to show their love for their children by strictly punishing their misdeeds.
ABCNEWS's Steve Osunsami contributed to this ABC News report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: false dichotomy Posted by: Intellect
The Real Family Model
Posted by: ohb0b on Apr 11, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of biblical times wasn't the "nuclear family" which is a creation of the industrial revolution, but the "extended family;" several generations, adult relatives living in close proximity, pooling their resources. This family did perform many of the functions associated with the traditional family of the Christian right: childcare, care for the sick and elderly,etc.
This family model was destroyed by the industrial revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Real Family Model Posted by: oxheadone
» RE: The Real Family Model Posted by: bgamett
Look, no more sugar coating this crap
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 11, 2008 11:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fundie Xtian families are breeding grounds of abuse, dysfunctional and psychopathic behavior. I know because I came from one. Most of my income has gone into therapy to recover from the traumas inflicted on me because I was an artistic kid in a anti-art cult (Xtian fundies seethe with hatred for art, unless it's sanitized and protected by a hierarchal male authority figure and even then, just wait till that artist is in an alley somewhere outside his perimeter).

The Xtian right is a clear and present danger to every last man woman and child on this earth. Deal with them or they'll be stripping you of your rights freedom, dignity and creativity.

No more being pretty polite, these people want to kill you if you're not in their church!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: zealotry Posted by: Longdream
» RE: zealotry Posted by: Intellect
Good books on religion
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 11, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good books on religion Posted by: T Stewart
Religion is a scam
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 12, 2008 12:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.".] Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a scam Posted by: Longdream
» RE: eligion is a scam Posted by: Intellect
» RE: eligion is a scam Posted by: Intellect
» RE: eligion is a scam Posted by: Intellect
» RE: eligion is a scam Posted by: LMNOP
Has anyone else noticed AsteroidMiner posts the same words repeatedly?
Posted by: JLPearson on Apr 12, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same two columns were posted by AM in response to a real estate scandal concerning defunct churches in another Alternet article. The same two columns pop up regularly in other Alternet articles, using the same words and phrases to such an extent that I suspect AM of merely cutting and pasting the same verbiage over and over, sticking it where ever he finds the word god or religion or church mentioned. I think I remember seeing them on Common Dreams as well. No new words, no new . . . thoughts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SNORT! Posted by: Longdream
Growing Up In an Evangelical Family
Posted by: MargoM on Apr 12, 2008 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I'm number 158 here, but in scanning through the comments it looked like I might have something to contribute.

I was born and raised in a very conservative Evangelical family. My dad was the head of the household and mom did the traditional womanly tasks around home. However, my dad helped a lot, so he didn't fit the description in this article.

It's been really hard for me to break away from the strong gender role expectations of my family. Even as a teenager I went to a club at church called "Pioneer Girls" where we were awarded badges for doing womanly things. It's like we were taught the career of being a Christian homemaker.

Also, none of my female cohorts that I grew up with in that church went on to become career women. Almost all became homemakers, and there was one who has a career, but not professional. This was a mostly middle class church. Some of the women who became homemakers did get a B.A., but as far as I know they never used their studies professionally.

It's really been hard for me to break out of this mold. It's like there's a mill stone around my neck that's hard to get rid of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christian Reconstructionists
Posted by: billwald on Apr 12, 2008 7:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see www.freebooks.com Google Rushdoony theonomy christian reconctruction

the Bush advisers are one worlders who think they can out one world the socialist one worlders because God is on their side. The goal is to impose Old Testament law on the entire world so that Jesus can return.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christian Reconstructionists Posted by: carcinoid112
John Rosemond's remarks
Posted by: VeryBlessed on Apr 12, 2008 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, what Rosemond wrote and said is being seriously twisted here. I wasn’t aware that he’s a Christian, and while a Christian myself, I don’t believe that I share his views on psychology, as I don’t completely accept its ideas. But it's still plain that he is simply not equating toddlers to sociopaths, unless there’s something beyond what’s been reported here in the correspondence he had with the article’s author. As the article itself says,” the difference (between a toddler and a sociopath) is simple.” And that’s true - it is very simple. I don’t believe that all the differences have been lost on him either. Making one connection between two things is not equating them, and in this case it's a legitimate connection - the narcissism of each. And he is hardly the first one to make that connection or comment on it. It's well established.

There is also this statement in the article which isn’t true: “And so the fourth characteristic of a Christian Right home is that children are born evil and can become good only through a Godly mixture of love and punishment.” That’s a simplification of Christian belief on children that’s just inaccurate. I won’t even go into it all, because there are a number of distortions in the statement that would each need to be discussed. I’ll only say that its picture of redemption completely leaves Jesus out of its picture, for one thing. And the sentence totally misrepresents the idea of original sin. Children are also made in God’s image. What about how Jesus spoke of them. The article leaves out a lot in order to basically claim, “Children are evil things to Christians.”

Then there’s this sentence from John Rosemond: “"In my estimation, toddlerhood is a pathological condition that demands 'cure,' accomplished through a combination of powerful love and powerful discipline.” I think it’s plain that he’s saying that this is part of how he conceives toddlerhood, which is useful for him to make sense of it by tying it to other things in a mental illustration. By no means do I believe he is in any way actually “diagnosing” toddlerhood as a disease. This is evident in part because he says “in my estimation,” but also because of what follows. “Cure” is in quotes. And the “cure” is: powerful love and powerful discipline. Would anybody who’s been responsible for nurturing a toddler deny that that’s the answer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: Longdream
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: e rice
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: Longdream
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: e rice
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: Longdream
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: Longdream
» RE: John Rosemond's remarks Posted by: VeryBlessed
T Stewart
Posted by: T Stewart on Apr 13, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that so called progressives have such hatred of Christians. And so little understanding of Christianity.
Christ said about children, whose social standing at the time(because they were easier to make than fix?) was below that of even women. "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" and "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven".
Most scholars today recognize that the Gospels were written by, or for, the actual witnesses to these words no later than 80CE (Christian Era ;))!
I read one post that claimed G.Bush and others wanted to set up their "brand" of Christianity all over the world. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world.
Of all the comments I've read, none have touched me more than those by DaBear. How sad that someone has been so abused in the name of Christ. DaBear if you read this late post, know that I, and probably others, will prayer that the torture in your heart and mind be lifted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: T Stewart Posted by: pangolin
» RE: T Stewart Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
gentlewoman
Posted by: lokicat on Apr 13, 2008 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what else is new? Evangelicals back through US history have ever attempted to coerce, punish, and over control their children as the way to control their own unruly impulses as well as a 'repetition compulsion' to do to their children what was done to them in childhood. It was done to Billy Graham and to George Bush Sr. and who know how many of this nations leaders.
Read:

Spare The Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse By Philip Greven.
The Protestant Temperament. Particularly the former will show one of the roots of America's violence that goes out into the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet's editor must be phoning it in
Posted by: JesseBC on Apr 14, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...because Alternet is really starting to suck.

Call me crazy, but when an article is titled "Going Behind Closed Doors in Christian Right Households," I figure the article will (silly me) have something to do with actual Christian right households and how they live behind closed doors.

This article would more appropriately be titled "Quoting Lots of Christian Self-Help Books." Which, incidentally, the author engages in for far too long (the gist of this article could have taken half the word count of this beast) with nothing to support that Christian Right households are any better at living up to their self-help books than the rest of us. Nor, for that matter, that Christians are even largely in agreement with what some of their leaders have to say about things like child discipline.

Also, Alternet really needs to quit assuming that their readership is so thoroughly in agreement that you can just throw out things like "unemployment causes divorce" without doing anything to even prove a correlation between those two things, let alone causation.

Wow...there have been some lazy pieces of journalism on here lately, but this one must be near the top of the list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet's readers must be phoning it in
Posted by: JohnMark on Apr 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....because some of them obviously haven't read the article.

The author does use quotations from Christian Right self-help manuals to paint a picture of their ideals--maybe you found it old hat, but I found it fascinating. Then he draws heavily on empirical studies to convey an idea of how right-wing evangelicals really live in contrast to their ideals, and extensively quotes the sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox to support his case, and cites many other studies. You might disagree with the author's conclusions, but the case he makes is not sloppy.

This is a somewhat demanding article, especially if you have a short attention span and can't be bothered to read through to the end, but I think it certainly does it what it sets out to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

paganpat
Posted by: paganpat on Apr 20, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dicipline and punnishment are not the same.Dicipline takes time and is a lot of work for the caretaker,punnishment is reactionary and thoughtless and usually revengeful and to do it with "love" is sadistic. In bibical times a rod was a measuring devise, so this is probably where a role model comes to mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: paganpat Posted by: Intellect