Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

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.
Advertisement

"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!

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

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

 

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: ssegallmd
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: e rice
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Cathyc... Posted by: ssegallmd
» 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: ssegallmd
» RE: Almost there. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Almost there. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: We get it, you're a howling bigot Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» another howling bigot Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: another howling bigot Posted by: Intellect
» RE: another howling bigot Posted by: Lauren
» not just Christians Posted by: pfeifer999
» 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: ssegallmd
» 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: ssegallmd
» RE: But you are so wrong Posted by: pfeifer999
» Here come more Christians Posted by: ssegallmd
» congratulations ssegallmd Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: congratulations ssegallmd Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: congratulations Posted by: pfeifer999
» 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
» darts at my house Friday Posted by: pfeifer999
» 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: ssegallmd
» Mother Theresa Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Mother Theresa Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Mother Theresa Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Mother Theresa Posted by: ssegallmd
» 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: ssegallmd 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: ssegallmd
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]

» It is a false word, pastor Posted by: ssegallmd
» 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: ssegallmd
» My "drivel" will continue Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: robchapman
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» You're a pip, longdream Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» RE: My "drivel" will continue Posted by: Longdream
» Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: So, tell me, Junior Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: robchapman
» Pascal's wager Posted by: pfeifer999
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?