Missing Here: An Analysis of the Religious Right's Grassroots
Theovanna printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 05:10:35 PM EST
I have read, and occasionally posted, here for about 6 months, a fairly lengthy period considering the relative newness of this site.  And during that time I have learned much about the Religious Right (RR), its goals and activities, and the organizations which support it.  But one thing, one hugely important thing, is missing. . . .
There has been virtually no discussion here about the factors which cause thousands, perhaps millions, of our fellow citizens to support the RR and its goals.  The RR is treated almost exclusively as if it were a "top-down" movement, in some cases something more like a "top-down" conspiracy, in which a relatively small group dedicated, well-financed organizations has actively pursued a theocratic agenda and, by the way, managed to deceive or pursuade large numbers of average people to go along.

Thus, an article here might describe (and implicitly condemn) a pastor at a 4000-member megachurch who gave a hate-filled speech against gays, feminists, or liberals in general.  But the discussion stops there.  Doesn't anyone else want to know why 4000 people continue to attend a place of worship where they are exposed to such vitriol?  After all, 4000 is a large number.  In one of the most liberal areas of the country, my own UU congregation has about 150 members, less than 10 percent of the megachurch membership (though I must note that the Catholic and many of the mainline Protestant churches in this area are pretty liberal too).

Most of the other articles have the same focus.  There is a great deal of attention paid to the individuals and organizations which play a leadership role in the RR, but the "followers" -- the people who have other jobs and other concerns but nevertheless support the RR with money, votes, and personal participation -- are mentioned only in passing, as evidence that some group or program is having a measure of success and hence poses a real threat.

This is, it seem to me (stealing a title from Al Gore), an "Inconvenient Truth" for Talk to Action, and it is a truth that, probably because it is so inconvenient, is consistently ignored.  After all, if one believes in democracy, and I believe that the people who post here do, one has to believe that the opinions, attitudes, and values of a large segment of the voting public should be taken into account -- even if one strongly disagrees with them.  Yet the people who make up the RR's grassroots are treated, if they are mentioned at all, as clueless dupes or raving bigots.  Some no doubt are, but thousands and thousands of them?  I am inclined to disbelieve that.

I do not want to minimize the significance of all the articles here that focus on the leadership elements of the RR; those that describe its "behind-the-scenes" organizing tactics are particularly valuable.  I am well aware that a movement which appears to be a spontaneous grassroots campaign can look very different if one understands the hidden efforts which brought it about.  But there has to be something in those efforts which makes the message resonate with the people who make up those grassroots.  I don't feel that is being given sufficient attention here.



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
Missing Here: An Analysis of the Religious Right's Grassroots | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
We look forward (none / 0)
to your report on the grass roots of the religious right, Theovanna.

Meanwhile, in saying what you think should be done by others, perhaps you would be so kind as to not disparage their good efforts with statements like this:

Yet the people who make up the RR's grassroots are treated, if they are mentioned at all, as clueless dupes or raving bigots.

Oh really? By whom?

If you have a criticism of someone's reporting, I hope you -- and anyone else -- will make it when you see it. If someone is being wrong or unfair, let's hear it.  How will we ever get it right if people don't mention when we get it wrong?

The featured writers and the diarists -- like you -- write exactly what they choose to write. There is no one making assignments, and there are no resources to support the research and writing that people contribute to make the site go.

There are many, many things that I, and all of us I am sure, would like to see written about. There is also lots of outreach and marketing and media I would certainly like to see happen. But we are constrained, Theovanna. And we are doing the best we can, with what we have.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 05:39:56 PM EST

My Riff on Customer Feedback (none / 0)
If I have been unfair, I apologize.  I was describing my "impressions" of much of what I read, and I those impressions may have been strongly colored by my own biases, so that my description related as much to what I perceived as to what was actually written. I will attempt to be more careful in the future.  However, my primary concern -- lack of attention to the RR's grassroots -- remains.

On the other hand, I am at the moment intensely skeptical of your apparently open-minded invitation to point out where another writer has gotten it wrong.  It seems to me that several people attempted to do just that in their responses to the articles on the "Left Behind" video game, and their thoughtful, moderate, well-reasoned critiques were met with what they regarded (correctly, in my opinion) as condescension and derision.  Your response to my post on the grassroots, while much more measured in tone, also seems to me to be unnecessarily defensive.

Mr. (Rev.?, Dr.?) Clarkson, let me be clear.  I support your cause; I applaud you for your efforts on its behalf; and, when I feel I have been sufficiently informed and my personal circumstances permit, I hope to become actively involved in promoting it.  I thought that this site might well provide a community of like-minded people who could guide me in my efforts.  But it can't do that if any hint of criticism is viewed as an attack to be shot down rather than a welcome (even if perhaps misguided) suggestion for improvement.

To be frank, I never anticipated that my diary entry would be viewed as unwelcome criticism, and that may reflect a degree of naivite on my part which I will need to correct.  As I stated above, I will try to be more careful with what I say.

I view myself as your customer, and I viewed my diary entry as customer feedback.  It was as if I was writing to KitchenAid to tell the company that I loved almost everything about its mixers but couldn't use them because the mixing bowls provided were too small for my needs.  I would expect KitchenAid to be happy to hear from me.  That doesn't mean that they would automatically start making larger bowls.  They might write back to tell me that larger bowls would make the unit much more expensive, would not fit with the current design of the base unit, or were impractical for some other reason (and there are elements of your response which fit that pattern).  But they wouldn't (if they were smart) write back to challenge me to name a better mixer on the market, bowl size notwithstanding, or suggest that I was unreasonable to want bowls of a different size.  And they might even consider doing some market research to determine if other people felt the same way I did, so that providing a mixer with larger bowls would increase their volume of sales.

My diary dealt with the grassroots of the Religious Right, but there is another grassroots to consider, the grassroots of the secular and religious left.  That's where I am, and that's what I mean when I say I consider myself your customer.  Right now, I don't consider this site to be particularly customer-friendly.  It is, I thoroughly agree, providing a great product (information), but it doesn't seem very responsive to customer concerns, and that is another important part of the equation.  

Perhaps the fault is mine.  I may have come to the wrong place.  Perhaps it is your sole intention to provide a site where the experts, leaders, and potential leaders of the anti-theocracy movement can share information and ideas, with outreach to the grassroots coming later.  If that is the case, I wish you well, and I will continue to read the excellent articles posted here for my own enlightenment, but I will have to look elsewhere to find people with whom I can join in practical action.

People interested in building a grassroots movement realize that not everyone possesses the same level of information that they do.  They also understand that the skeptic whose questions, doubts, and even pointed criticism have been resolved is likely to become their most fervent supporter, and they respond to their skeptics with that in mind.  Two weeks ago, I was deeply troubled by the possibility that some of the intelligent, articulate, well-meaning people who learned about this site for the first time through links to the video game article had been permanently turned away by the reception they received. Today I feel a certain kinship with them.

I feel as if I am in a no-win situation here, since my plea for a kinder response to questions and criticism may itself be viewed as criticism to be responded to as before.  I just don't know how to express my concerns any other way.  All I can do is repeat my assurance that my actions have been intended to make Talk to Action a better vehicle for carrying on its most important task.

by Theovanna on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:16:35 PM EST
Parent

questions and criticism are fine (none / 0)
If you are going to give them, please be fair, please be specific, please be constructive, as I think I was with you.

We have no customers here.   If you wish to participate in a community, then it is your responsibility to help to create it. We do what we can to try to make the place, but we cannot do it alone.

Again, if there is a void, you are welcome to point that out. But in so doing, please be fair, and preferably polite too. I don't think we actually disagree on the substance. If you would like to help to fill the void, please do. If you would like to raise the funds for a research and writing project for someone we would love to talk with you about it.

But as in any other area of life, folks who make unfair, unsupported and unwarranted claims or "impressions," can reasonably expect responses that point out the excess. I think it is you who might consider offering kinder responses to the gifts and opportunities you have been given by dedicated and thoughtful people.

We have folks here who offer their time, talent and expertise for what value you and all of us may find in it. I learn new and interesting things here all of the time, sometimes more from the comment, discussions and disagreements as much as the original posts. You and everyone are welcome to discuss anything you like within the reasonable framework of the site's purpose and guidelines.

I do not claim to be as smart as Kitchen Aid. But then again, Kitchen Aid is not inviting you into the business plan and onto the factory floor to make your own product and sell it in their showroom.  But all that is actually the wrong analogy. This is about you, about me and about the site. If one comes on rudely, one may very well be treated as if one had come on rudely, just as one would in other areas of life.

If someone makes unsupported or unfounded charges in response to an article or some other aspect of the site, one may very well get a tough response. Might the response sometimes be too tough? Well sure. We all make mistakes. And for better or worse there will usually be someone there to point it out. Hopefully we learn some useful lessons along the way.

Learning to think and write about the religious right and what to do about it, and doing so in the open, in public, in this way, is not easy. If a foundation layed a million bucks on us it would be no easier -- although the money would certainly help. And there are bumps of intellectual, political and personal natures along the way. In creating something like this, it takes the efforts of many. To create a wider and more effective movement in response, it takes many more.

I do not pretend to have all of the answers, although I have, as have others here spent many, many hours laying out what are some pretty good ideas. Grassroots? You will not find anyone on the site who has talked more about grassroots aspects of our side more than I.  I wish there had been more response and conversation about it. But perhaps people were not ready when I was. But you can look up all that I have written about this, and anything else, thanks to the easy to use system that co-founder Bruce Wilson has put in place.

I take the time to respond to you because you have been an especially thoughtful diarist and commenter and so I am surprised by your ill will. But it seems to me that if you review your diary, it is about you as much as it is about the site. You have some questions that you would like answered. Well, hey, I have a lot of questions too. But I am not demanding that you answer them for me or making attacks on your character for your failure to deliver.

We are just human beings around here, Theovanna. If you want the illusions of caring customer service from hourly wage workers, there is always Kitchen Aid. If you want to talk to me, or anyone who writes on the site, we are not hard to find or to talk to, if you give us half a chance and a fair shake.

-- Fred (neither Rev. nor Dr.)

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:55:12 PM EST
Parent


There are a lot of aspects here to consider... (none / 0)
That this site exists at all is a minor miracle, and I'd second what Fred mentioned about resources :  yes, I'd be thrilled to have coverage and analysis of some of the positive aspects of what Christian right churches offer their members - not in isolation from aspects that might be negative, but coverage of the totality would be useful. I certainly don't think abuse and coercive tactics constitute the entire picture, and I have no doubt that the Christian left has things to learn from the Christian right in terms of attracting and retaining membership.

Getting back to the site itself, one aspect that bears mention is the fact that there is a steady influx of new members who actually turn out to be trolls. In the background, think of this : there are many who do not want this site to succeed, and the simple task of monitoring comments - for indications of possible intentional disruption - is time consuming. This site is not as laissez faire as many group sites are for the simple reason that until recently, in the last decade or so, the American right has generally dominated public discourse on the Net and off of it, and some of the methods used toward that end have been less than fully kosher, or ethical. Of course, trollishness is an art form - there is often a good deal of ambiguity in troll-identification, and it may be that you have picked up on some of the tension inherent to making such determinations.

Meanwhile, even the task of keeping discussions on the site on topic can be difficult. In short, the field of discourse here can be a minefield. We do the best we can with the time we have.

As with Fred, I'm not sure what you were referring to in your "dupes and bigots" remark - examples of such attitudes woud be helpful. Those are serious charges that we can't respond to in the abstract. I like to think the discourse here is generally polite and respectful, and so if you can point me to examples of the sort of disrespect you've mentioned I'd be grateful.

by Bruce Wilson on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 09:42:24 PM EST
Parent




Interesting point (none / 0)
Theovanna, I think you raise an interesting point and challenge. We do need to reflect more on what the followers of the Christian Right leaders are doing and thinking. I think it is overlooked that there is a dynamic in the pews that is often at odds or going in different directions than the dynamic in the pulpits. The leaders and pastors of the churches are often not in the same political, theological, or cultural wave length as their members and this in turn is exploited by various organizations (mostly from the right, but maybe now increasingly from the left) which can directly reach the church members through the radio, internet and other means.

by Carlos on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:17:15 AM EST

Grassroots: grasping for lost ground (none / 0)
My personal conclusion, based equally on readings and on sixteen years as a clinic escort in a small southern town, is that most members of the religious-right grassroots are well-meaning and ill-informed. Unfortunately, the "clueless dupes" stereotype which Theovanna protests against does often apply.

I haven't met so many of the "raving bigots", but enough to be certain that they're out there. Closely associated with those are the people who seem to have joined the True Believers as a socially acceptable way to spew innate belligerence and verbal violence against "the enemy", and whom I suspect would participate in just about any activism providing such opportunities.

That said, the well-intentioned hyperchristian foot-soldiers are clearly in the majority. My observations are that most of these fall into two categories, which overlap fairly closely with their denomination:

  • the Catholics tend to be quite naive, with an uncritical understanding of the world based on what they've been told and expectations that all people need to agree with them is to hear "the truth";
  • the Baptists are more combative, more willing to use gruesome images and other shock tactics, and have internalized their version of the Bible's position to a point where they rely less on external authority.
Of course, there are exceptions to these patterns, but they often fit. (Note: only one local megachurch has sent "sidewalk counselors" to clinics here, who were evidently pulled back as soon as it seemed they might attract negative publicity; so my "field notes" are correspondingly incomplete.)

As for core motivation, my working hypothesis is that the majority of anti-choicers are displacing their (well-founded) anxieties by focusing on the abortion issue. Consider the fetus as the perfect symbol of innocence and helplessness, menaced by anonymous forces both intimate and institutional: a blank screen onto which people can project their fears about an increasingly stressful and insecure world of incomprehensible vast changes. It's easy to identify with: think of the popular bumper-sticker with a sketch of a fetus and the slogan, "Your Choice: My Life."

To address the real problems of modern life - economic disruptions, cultural transformations, global conflicts, etc - would require directly challenging just about all our major institutions: corporate power, governments, cultural paradigms, etc. That's scary; it's hard, frustrating work; it requires study, and analysis of our own complicities in "the system"; it aligns you with officially-declared social enemies.

It's much easier to battle Satan and the "culture of death" (from which the military-industrial complex is conveniently excluded). Little new thinking is required, and all kinds of fear and anger can be channeled into a storyline which gives meaning and structure to lives otherwise perceived as adrift and at the mercy of anonymous, exploitive forces. Expectations of the Apocalypse likewise provide all the psychodrama anyone could ask for, without the inconvenience of confronting individual circumstances and strivings.

Pre-existing sexism and other intensely emotional biases also come into play, naturally. Again, it's easier to go with such currents than against them.

And, of course, there's an endless series of enterprising "spiritual leaders" ready to answer all questions and resolve all doubts, directing attention to whatever reinforces this focus and distracting from anything contradictory. The motivations of the grassroots, after all, cannot be adequately described without due regard to the manipulators in the upper ranks, those who produce and distribute this 21st-century methamphetamine of the masses.

Is this a sufficient explanation of the sort Theovanna calls for? Not at all. This is just one opinion, from a very limited perspective, of a huge, variegated, and constantly changing social phenomenon. I hope Talk2Action will make a consistent effort to explore this question from a variety of starting points and all available conceptual tools.

by Pierce R Butler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:17:01 PM EST

Also, the sort of analysis Theovanna wants... (none / 0)
Is actually covered very well by a number of journalists - Jeff Sharlet, for example, has built his career on a close and not unsympathetic treatment of the Christian right's grassroots. I'd highly recommend Sharlet's writing for one perspective on this subject.

But, that sort of reporting takes a lot of time and the sort of patronage - via funding and editorial support - that we can't provide at this time.

by Bruce Wilson on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:37:20 PM EST
Parent

Share 'n' tell (none / 0)
Perhaps T2A per se can't afford major investigate projects, but it can set up online fora and encourage those of us watching from our various little nooks & crannies to report and discuss what we see.

If 50 people put in their two cents' worth, you've got enough for one edition of the New York Times.

by Pierce R Butler on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 07:27:09 PM EST
Parent

Well, what name would you attach to such a forum ? (none / 0)
It would need a name. I think there's a need : there are many ways to phrase this such as "what positive, ethical aspects/lessons/methods can the progressive/religious left learn from the Christian right ?"

That's a wordy phrasing. That's what I'd call it.

Thoughts ?

by Bruce Wilson on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:52:19 PM EST
Parent

topicality alert (none / 0)
Before we get very far down this path, a reminder is in order. The site topic is the religious right and what to do about it. By that we generally mean the clearly identifiable social/political movement we call the religious right.

We are not necessarily interested in why people join one church over another; the appeal of "mega churches" or other aspects of the psychology or sociology of religion -- except in so far as it directly relates to the topic of the site. If people are interested in this kind of thing, there are hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject and we need not dwell on it here.

So while reporting on grassroots aspects of the religious right is very much on topic, and I hope to see some writing about it around here, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, religious broadcasting, church growth etc. per se, is not.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:47:03 PM EST
Parent

a fuzzy line (none / 0)
Frederick Clarkson asks for a distinction both necessary and unreasonable. Necessary because it would be not just a waste of resources but counterproductive to open up T2A to religion-bashing and soapbox oratory in general; unreasonable because both religion and the right wing have wide roots in society in general, so that no clear line can be drawn around the "religious right" as such.

Thus, the megachurch members I faced for several weeks on the sidewalks here would have been fair game for analysis then - but not now that they've been withdrawn. (Fair enough - I also prefer to let that sleeping mad dog lie.)

An intriguing dilemma, with the only visible solution being that the T2A editors maintain such strict control that my readers' forum idea becomes impractical - or that Theovanna's plea is rejected and this site continues to focus only on that portion of the iceberg above the waterline.

I see no satisfactory response - much as with the American crisis in general.

by Pierce R Butler on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:46:43 AM EST
Parent


Well... (none / 0)
I'm interested in these sorts of questions: leaving specific ideologies and theologies aside, what other factors draw people to join one church over the other ? I think analysis of such questions would be appropriate insofar as the answers obtained could be applied anywhere and were not rooted in any particular theology - ideally, such knowledge would apply to secular organizations as well.

In the background is the need for religious institutions on the left and the "accepting" end of the faith spectrum to attract new membership. That is not Talk To Action's task, but in terms of the site's function as a knowledge base I do think some exploration of the issue is in order. No doubt church organizations look at these questions up to a point, but there well may be much they miss and - in any case -  such analysis, as it exists, is generally not so accessible ( as far as I've seen ).

I don't think such question can be relegated to the margins of off-topicality for the simple reason that they have a bearing on the health of liberal and non-theocratic institutions of faith in America and, while this site is not intended for religious advocacy, there are very practical reasons to be concerned that existing liberal, non-theocratic institutions of faith in America prosper.

Another way of expressing this would be to ask - well, if we held that  there were no lessons at all to be discerned in a study of these particular aspects of  the religious right, nothing at all of signficance and no practices that were not abusive or ethically compromised in some manner,  wouldn't that stance amount to, in effect, a form of demonization ?

Meanwhile, although there may be many books written on the subject there is general a considerable lag time between the research of material for books, the writing of them, and when they at last come into print. Further, insofar as they exist one must buy such books whereas content here - on this net forum - is free.

I agree that such discussions might at times have problematic aspects but I don't think the Christian right can be confronted most effectively without specifc understanding of various motivations that bring people to join Christian right churches and organizations. Such discussions would need to steer clear of praise and towards hard-headed analysis, of course - the point would be not to praise the Christian right as a movement but to recognize where and how it was most effective and identify which elements, if appropriate and ethical, of such models could be employed by liberal institutions of faith.  

Many lessons learned would also be applicable to secular organizations - part of what I am musing on here are questions concerning social technologies inherent to organization building - social technologies that could be applied in any organization, secular or religious.  I find it very significant, for example, that an organization such as Ted Haggard's New Life Church has - as a gemeinschaft association - developed mechanisms which facillitate gesseltschaften ties, small group intimacy within the church. Now, that's certainly not new, but a great deal of thought has gone into marketing and "user experience" at New Life church, such that it has groups and activities that appeal to a very wide range of interests and needs of its membership.

In the end this whole issue could be thought of ( much as I dislike the term ) as an exploration of marketing - how well do non-theocratic, liberal faith institutions market themselves ? These are certainly not new questions either - they were grist for the gentle parody of Gary Trudeau decades ago. Or, this project could also be characterized as an application of imperatives laid out long ago by Sun Tzu : know the opposition.

by Bruce Wilson on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:13:38 AM EST
Parent

Indeed. (none / 0)
"I don't think the religious right can be confronted most effectively without specific understanding of various motivations that bring people to join Christian right churches and organizations."  Your words, not mine, but that is exactly what I was trying to get at in the diary entry that started this thread.  You just managed to express the same idea in about one-fortieth of the words I had to use.

At the time, I wasn't thinking along the lines of "What is the Christian right doing right?"  I was thinking more along the lines of the kind of information Mr. Butler provided.  However, now that you've brought that subject up, I think it warrants some discussion too.  Partly because that is a part of the big picture, and partly because of the other reasons you mentioned.  I assume that the founders of Talk to Action are serious about the title they selected, that they are interested in generating action, not just talk.  When we think about building a political movement, we have to think about building coalitions, and I agree with you that the mainline and liberal churches can be important allies.  (Indeed, I think there are some aspects of this struggle in which liberal Christians MUST take the leadership role.  I empathized with Michelle Goldberg's comment (in her reply to ones of the responses to her acticle on "Cul-de-sacs of Causuistry") that, as a secular Jew, she didn't feel comfortable getting into scriptural debates with Christian rightists.  She can't, and I can't, but there are people who can.)  So, if in the course of exploring the big picture, we come across information that our allies can use, that will be all to the good.  Also, as you noted, there may be lessons on organization-building that can be also be applied to secular movements, including our own.

As for some of this being related to marketing, sure, of course it is.  I don't have any problem with that.  As a professional advocate, I try to learn from all of the great advocates, orators, and salesmen whose work I can access.  I include all three categories because I believe that, at some level, all of us are in the same business.  I just happen to be selling ideas rather than toasters or potato chips.  And that's why I think that what I've called "customer service" is important too.  Unfortunately, I think that some of the leaders of the Religious Right are way ahead of me in this regard.


BTW:  I've been thinking about Sun Tzu also.



by Theovanna on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:11:43 PM EST
Parent
You're very welcome, Ms. Theovanna. (none / 0)
In the  morning I can forward some free Jeff Sharlet pieces. I like his work.

But, that shouldn't detract too much from the point at hand:

I can't demonize the Christian right. They are my flesh and blood - immediate family members - and I have to take their thoughts and feelings into consideration.

The problem with demonization is that such responses locate problems at one pole or another. Yet, wishy-washy equivocation is another horn of this dilemna. What to do ?

I don't have answers, but I will say this : In the end I have found the internet to be a  poor means of organizing and activism. If you want to know what I mean by that, please look up The Fog Of Net



 




by Bruce Wilson on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 09:52:56 PM EST
Parent






Thank you, Mr. Wilson, . . . (none / 0)
. . . for your helpful suggestion.  I went to amazon.com to look for publications by Mr. Sharlet.  There was one that sounded intriguing, a book review that suggested that another writer had oversimplified the motives of religious extremists.  However, the price ($5.95) seemed a bit high for an 8-page book review.  Ah, well, I suppose I will someday have time to trek to one of my (not-so-local) university libraries where I can read the review for free.  In the meantime, I will keep Mr. Sharlet's name in mind in case I happen to run across references to other things he has written.

by Theovanna on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:21:02 PM EST
Parent


Thank you, Mr. Butler, . . . (none / 0)
for a thoughtful and informative piece.  It may not be a "sufficient explanation"  of the phenomenon -- indeed, I doubt that any single individual could provide one, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.  This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping my diary entry would generate.

by Theovanna on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 08:12:11 PM EST
Parent


Focusing on the grassroots (none / 0)
We need to remember that none of the major players in the Dominionist movement (I should say movements, as I think we may sometimes tend to forget that it's not the monolith it often seems to be) started out as a major player. Once upon a time they too were just regular Jacks and Jills in the pews; like all of us, they have life stories of how their personal faith evolved and shaped who they are now.

The big difference is that perhaps they were a bit more articulate and/or savvy than the average Jack and Jill and happened to be in the right place at the right time and say or do the right things to gain vital support from like-minded people and groups. And of course they get the most attention here and elsewhere simply because they're highly visible and the "regular J&Js" aren't.

Having said that, I agree 100% that we need to pay as much attention to the regular J&Js as to the big guns, because just like the rest of us, they're taking it to the streets, being influenced by - and, equally important, in turn influencing - the larger movement as it meets the rest of the world. Just like the rest of us, they're also training their children as they think best "in the way they should go," and those children are the ones who will carry on the movement and possibly end up as the next major players.

So we all need to know: Are those average Jacks and Jills simply following their leaders, or are they and their immediate church environments evolving in a different direction, and how so? How are the many little streams flowing that feed into the river of the larger movement? Needless to say, the answers will shape the way we deal with the movement in the future.

As to what exactly it is that makes a person's faith go in one direction rather than another? Sure beats me. I have a brother a year younger than myself, and we grew up in pretty much identical environment as preacher's kids in a progressive family and church. Yet we've diverged about as far as is possible without meeting on the other side. From a progressive beginning, I've become a "Christian agnostic" and a borderline socialist, while Terry is a pretty hardcore fundamentalist, and our two younger siblings are somewhere in between. All that, and we grew up in the exact same patch of grass................


by anomalous4 on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:10:13 PM EST


Why do people support the Christian Right? (none / 0)
I'll offer a few reasons that I've seen. I attend a rather conservative Mennonite church, and I grew up in an evangelical/holiness church, where others in my family still attend.

James Dobson is widely respected and provides a very important gateway into the Right. He is respected because of the practical (and often good) advice that he gives to people via his radio show. A lot of people are looking for ways to raise children and relate to family and others in a rapidly changing world. He provides a point of anchorage for many.

I recently read an article (I believe on Alternet) denouncing abstinence-only programs. It made some valid points about misreporting of statistics and the fact that it doesn't work so well. However, it also disparaged the ethical/moral underpinnings of promoting abstinence. In many places it read like a promotion of sexual promiscuity. Advocacy of such positions by the occasional left-leaning journal makes the left seem very odd and immoral to many people.

I believe that one of the most important reasons for the emergence of the Right (religious or not) as a popular force is the move toward post-modernism. Whatever one thinks of post-modernism, or the term itself, rapid changes in how we speak of truth and morality and rightness are occuring. People feel adrift and the Right offers (often incorrectly and deceptively) an anchor in what seems like a sea of uncertainty. While the USA has never been a 'Christian' nation, it has provided a social-cultural milieu that supported Christian religion. That social-cultural support is breaking down.

by chipmunk on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:17:56 PM EST


Missing Here: An Analysis of the Religious Right's Grassroots | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (375 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (203 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (251 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (65 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (177 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (180 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (331 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (149 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.