The term extremism is currently in vogue to describe hate groups and other malcontents listed as such by knowledgeable monitors like SPLC and others in the T2A sidebar, but while we all know what a bigot is, the standard for extremist is vague. Pressing public opinion or the Department of Justice to adopt the term for creating lists is a mistake. If organizations or individuals advocate violence to deprive others of full and equal protection of the law, I think we can come up with a better, more accurate term.
Extremism, as I say, is an extremely imprecise term. Who gets to decide who is extreme? Homeland Security? That's reassuring. FBI agents and former CIA spooks turned extremist experts? Why not, they did so well as terrorism experts.
Misbehavior is misbehavior and should be dealt with accordingly. If crimes are committed, they should be prosecuted. But demonizing those disillusioned with the American government cuts a wide swath.
The extent of our misrule is so entrenched and pervasive, that handing wiretap and detention powers to secret agencies -- to harass anyone who is fed up with government corruption -- will only help the American aristocracy in keeping democracy down. The fact of the matter is that we have been abandoned, and no amount of state idolatry can change that.
Several of the authors here and in the sidebar have delineated the spectrum of the Far Right, including dominionists, in order to help us better understand the anti-democratic movement in America in all its dimensions. Clouding that clarity with demonizing terms like extremist does no one any good.
Where Do We Stand in the Bright Light of History?
Netroots Nation
August 14, 2009
Thank You, Professor Ledewitz, for initiating this discussion of a progressive vision for church and state -- and Netroots Nation for hosting it.
Professor Ledewitz invited this panel to surface objections to his proposal -- and to offer our own ideas as well. I will do a little of both. And while I think there are some things about which we undoubtedly agree, I want to focus on our areas of disagreement, which I think will be far more interesting, and I hope, useful for all of you.
Unlike Professor Ledewitz I see history as a living part of the story of who we are and where we are going. But one of the challenges we have faced as progressives has been the absence of a sufficiently common narrative of that history that takes into account the realities and struggles of the past, identifies common principles that have taken us this far and helps us find ways of articulating them in ways that powerfully reminds us of who we are, were we came from, and where we are going.
Historian Robert Rutland writing about the framers of the constitution and how they approached the matter of church and state, observed that the United States was founded,
"on purpose, in the bright light of history."
Note: the sermon excerpt video and transcript below, from a January 18, 2009 sermon by pastor Steven Anderson of the Tempe, Arizona Independent Baptist Church, begins at approximately 21:30 into Anderson's one hour, four minute sermon. The context is pastor Anderson's discussion of King David's Psalm 58, which called down a divine curse on David's foes.
[Below: Steven Anderson's January 18, 2009 sermon, which he has titled, on YouTube, "Barack Obama Melting Like a Snail". The sermon excerpt concludes with an impassioned declaration from pastor Anderson, that "Barack Obama is WHITE"]
The young ex-Muslim girl who ran away from her parents will be allowed to stay in Florida. The news article has strong indications that this is purely political.
In her recent article, Sara Robinson argues the United States is well on its way to becoming a totalitarian, fascist state. As evidence of this inevitability, she cites current town hall disruptions and threats received by public officials.
Not to quibble with her observation that we have been on a dangerous trajectory for some time, but the anti-democratic movement in America is bi-partisan, and is already well-entrenched. Both Obama and Bush are part of it.
While GOP thuggery is a deplorable means of exercising political influence, self-immersion in political panic or fascist hysteria is not what's called for. To her credit, Ms. Robinson soberly examines some of the attributes of rising fascism in response to social decline that deserve consideration, but fitting recurrent misbehavior -- mobilized for political purposes -- into a fascist framework is perhaps not the most effective analysis.
Addressing the underlying causes of disatisfaction, such as widespread institutional and market fraud, while less amenable to a partisan agenda, is nevertheless more strategically sound in defending democracy. Not to impune Ms. Robinson's motives, but there is a partisan aspect to her critique.
The anti-democratic movement, as Sara notes, is a serious threat to our freedom and well-being; framing that threat with inappropriate models, however, can lead to confusion about how to address that threat. The habit of linear thinking is not always conducive to public health.
GOP-sponsored vigilantism has happened before. It is an integral part of domestic terrorism aimed at ethnic minorities and other sub-populations targeted by White Nationalism and Christian Fundamentalism. Catholics, Jews, Blacks, and Native Americans have all been targets of vigilante violence. So have immigrants, feminists, and environmentalists.
Inciting mob behavior to threaten its political opponents has repeatedly been used by the GOP to prevent discussion on issues of social importance. War, abortion, guns, Gay rights, elections, even health care are topics for which vigilantes can be recruited.
Vigilantism, however, is not synonymous with protest, demonstration, or dissent. It is not a legitimate expression of grievances; rather it is an expression of hostility toward the perceived loss of power or privileges. The threshold level is to intimidate opponents through implied threats, followed by vigilante violence, succeeded by paramilitary operations.
On occasion, right-wing terrorism in the US has resorted to using weapons of mass destruction. Their networks and movements have even been profiled.
While I am not Catholic, I accidentally ran across this article which is of interest to us on this blog - it involves Vatican actions that concern attempts at political control...
Had I not escaped one night five years ago with my eight children from the manipulation and control of the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), I would have been one of the women in that infamous "prairie-style clothing" on that Texas polygamist compound that was raided last year. My children would have undoubtedly been among the 439 seized in the raid.
I know because my ex-husband, Merril Jessop, runs the compound in Eldorado, Texas and is one of the most powerful men in the FLDS. I feared that if we were ever moved beyond those compound walls--and it was meant just for the elite in the cult--my chance of ever freeing myself and my children might be over.
<h2> Living on Guard</h2> In The Religion of Fear, Jason C. Bivins examines conservative evangelical culture as it intersects with America's love affair with spectacular violence and the popular culture of fright that has given birth to "a rich and powerful fear regime".
print page
