This post is a revised, updated, and hopefully improved version of the post as first published. -- FC

The child sex abuse crisis in evangelical Christianity, although less reported, is at least as bad as it is in the Catholic Church. Taken together, this suggests that there is a crisis of a different kind looming for the leaders of the Religious Right, whose concern for the victims of abuse has been too muted, and too often belated when it is evident at all. There is also too often an obvious and alarming tendency to sympathize and side with the abuser over the victims. The proud defenders of what they call "family values" become bizarre self-parodies, at best, under such circumstances.

The political side of the Religious Right has not, to my knowledge, had the same kinds of problems as the leading conservative religious bodies. But what is significant here is that some of the leaders are the same people, and their issues are therefore at the very least, a barrel full of hypocrisy. Times have changed, and victims and their advocates increasingly have the power to hold them accountable.

Earlier this year I wrote that the credibility of the new Pope may depend on how he lives up to his claim of having a zero tolerance policy regarding child sex abuse.

This is one for the 'you just can't make this crap up' file.

There is a recently-formed coalition of anti-gay Christian organizations calling itself the "Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition." The primary mission of this so-called "religious freedom" coalition is to protect the "right" of anti-gay Christians in the military to continue to discriminate against and harass LGB service members in a post-DADT and post-DOMA military.

The background for people who haven't been following this little story of right-wing Christian deceit and propaganda:

Under the guise of "religious liberty" in the military, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) introduced an amendment to the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The real purpose of Fleming's amendment, however, is not religious liberty -- unless you consider government permission to freely discriminate against and harass LGB service members to be religious liberty. As Huffington Post Deputy Politics Editor Mollie Reilly very succinctly explained, what the Fleming amendment would actually do is take away the ability of military commanders to stop anti-gay harassment and discrimination within their ranks.

Many have tried ... few have succeeded. Some have made it part of their regular schtick. Some make a handsome living by doing it over and over again. But try as they might, the gold standard for blaming a natural disaster -- or tragic event -- on their enemies of choice, is still held by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Now, however, with floodwaters raging in his state, Colorado pastor and radio talk show host Kevin Swanson is aiming to be a contender in the pantheon of blame-game flame-throwers.

Swanson recently pointed his finger at the real causers of the floods: abortion, the legalization of marijuana, and "decadent homosexual activity." Climate change? Not so much.

Yesterday marked the start of Banned Books Week, an annual event sponsored by the American Library Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Booksellers Association and other groups.

Books get banned for lots of reasons. Claims that certain tomes are "blasphemous" or offensive to religion are common. In the summer of 2011, the school board in Republic, Mo., made national headlines after it voted to ban two books - one of them Kurt Vonnegut's classic novel Slaughterhouse-Five, because they were deemed "contrary to the Bible."

If, in the late summer of 2013, you are wondering why you don't have a reality television show of your own, it may be because you are not: a prosperity preacher living high off the hog in Los Angeles ("Preachers of L.A.); a member of the Kardashian family ("Keeping Up With The Kardashians"); a housewife living in any number of cities or towns ("The Real Housewives of ..."); demographically qualified for "Down South," a Jersey Shore knockoff taking place in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Or it could be something as simple as the fact that you do not now, nor have you ever, handled snakes in a religious or non-religious context!

Welcome to the world of "Snake Salvation."

Here are two partial transcripts of recent sermons, both from the Fall of 2012, both given at the Olive Branch Community Church - a "daughter" church of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, by Greg Harris, the church's head "teaching pastor". I am publishing these transcripts to document the extremity and conspiracy theory-driven nature of doctrines promoted at the Olive Branch church, which extend to apparent support for the Christian Reconstructionist agenda of imposing capital punishment for various infractions of Old Testament Levitical law (see first transcript, below.)

When President Obama talks about the Congressional budget showdown as apocalyptic....what does that mean?

What is Apocalyptic Aggression?

The merger of apocalyptic frameworks and conspiracy-based belief systems spawns aggressive confrontations that undermine civil society in a democracy.

Apocalyptic Aggression occurs when demonized scapegoats are targeted as enemies of the "common good," and a confrontation seen as not just a political necessity but a sacred duty.

Society is portrayed as split between the forces of good and the forces of evil.

God Loves Uganda is the film the Christian Right does not want you to see  The acclaimed documentary (about the role of American Christian Right figures and the infamous Kill the Gays bill) has been on the film festival circuit along with special showings here in the U.S. and Africa -- and is now being released to theaters in America.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've seen a number of articles about pseudo-historian David Barton's "comeback." My first thought upon seeing these articles was "what comeback?" You have to go away to have a comeback, and Barton has never gone away. His popularity and influence were not at all diminished when his book The Jefferson Lies was pulled last year by Christian publisher Thomas Nelson. His recovery was almost immediate. With the help of his pal Glenn Beck, an aggrieved Barton quickly had his followers convinced that he was being silenced for telling the truth! If anything, he became even more popular.

One recent article on Politico proclaims that "to his critics' astonishment, Barton has bounced back." Well, I'm one Barton critic who isn't a bit astonished. I said on the day that his book was pulled by Thomas Nelson that he'd find a way to wiggle out of what would be a career-ender for any real historian, and he did. Only a month after his book was pulled, Barton was not only representing his state at the Republican National Convention as if nothing had happened, but was one of the key players in drafting the 2012 Republican Party platform!

The Jefferson Lies being pulled by Thomas Nelson did not make this book go away any more than it made Barton himself go away. Barton is still selling off the thousands of copies he bought back from Thomas Nelson, and, although his claim that the book has been picked up by Simon & Schuster is certainly just another one of his lies, I have no doubt it will be republished by somebody when the supply of Thomas Nelson leftovers runs out. Therefore, I've continued my debunking of Barton's little masterpiece of historical revisionism.

When president Obama was reelected in 2012, a Texas man named Micah Hurd earned his 15 minutes of fame by launching a petition to the White House to let Texas secede from the Union. The effort might have gone unnoticed -- except that it drew 125,000 signatures and made national news. (The White House rejected the petition.)

Since then, the movement in support of the far right notion that states have the right to "nullify" federal court decisions and legislation as well as the right to secede from the Union, has grown.  Neo-Confederatism is rising.  But this post is not about that.

This post constitutes my third and final reply to Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s critique of my series on his neo-Confederate activities. In my first reply I explained why, his protestations not withstanding, he is indeed a neo-Confederate. My second reply focused on how Woods twists his opponents' statements into self-serving red herring.

Now I get to what is as the heart of Woods's neo-Confederate/libertarian agenda: defending the right to oppress; a critical component of which is the combination of nullification and secession.