In recent years, some in federal law enforcement have pushed the “lone wolf” theory of criminal activity by far-right organizations from neo-Nazis to revolutionary antiabortion terrorists. Prosecutions may be easier if there is a focus on individuals. But time and again, it is clear the those who have been convicted of crimes based on their far-right ideologies, almost always came from a culture and organizational context that nurtured their views and honed their skills. What’s more, its also so that these individuals often had help, and rarely act alone except in the narrowest sense of criminal culpability. I discussed the underground networks behind antiabortion violence in Eternal Hostility: The Strugle Between Theocracy and Democracy.

Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, and others in the prochoice leadership told me in interviews for Womens eNews a few years ago that they saw pursuing the wider networks that support violent antiabortion criminals — as essential.

“Other criminals,” Saporta said, “will continue to rise up to replace the high-profile criminals who get caught, because they know they can count on food, shelter and other support. I think that until we put those people in jail, we will not be able to stop the violence.”

The nationally syndicated radio news program Democracy Now recently featured an interview with a former FBI undercover operative who takes exception to the F.B.I.’s lone wolf theory. Here is part of their interview:

AMY GOODMAN: Today, we’re joined by an ex-F.B.I. agent, Mike German, a whistleblower. He resigned from the agency last year in protest of what he saw as continuing failures in the F.B.I. counterterrorism program. German had worked for years going undercover to infiltrate domestic terrorist organizations like white supremacist skinhead groups and anti-government militias. On June 5, he wrote an editorial in The Washington Post advocating law enforcement pay more attention to groups that produce so-called lone wolf extremists like Timothy McVeigh, executed for the Oklahoma City bombing, and Eric Rudolph who planted the bombs at the Atlanta Olympics and women’s health clinics, a gay night club, as well…

AMY GOODMAN: Looking at the piece that you did in The Washington Post, “Behind the Lone Terrorist, a Pack Mentality,” you talk about every once in a while, a follower of these movements bursts violently into our world with deadly consequences. McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Buford Furrow, Jr., Paul Hill, to name just a few, all convicted murderers, identified as lone extremists, the most difficult terrorists to stop, because they act independently from any organization. Or do they? You write, “Tim McVeigh seemed able to find a militia meeting wherever he went. He was linked to militia groups in Arizona and Michigan, white supremacist groups in Oklahoma and Missouri, and at gun shows he sold copies of The Turner Diaries, the racist novel written by the founder of a neo-Nazi organization. No one finds such groups by accident.” You talk about Eric Rudolph who planted the bombs at the Atlanta Olympics, two abortion clinics, gay nightclub, grew up in the Christian Identity Movement, which identifies whites as God’s chosen people and encourages the faithful to follow the Biblical example of Phineas, by becoming instruments of God’s vengeance. Aryan Nations, formerly of Hayden Lake, Idaho, was the center of Christian Identity thought. Not incidentally, Buford Furrow worked there as a security guard before going on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day care center in Southern California. And you talk about Paul Hill, wrote of the need to take Phineas actions to prevent abortions and was so well known that the news media used to — used him to speak in support of Michael Griffin’s killing of abortion doctor, David Gunn, that Hill later shot an abortion provider himself should have surprised no one. Give us the landscape of these groups. They’re well known.

MIKE GERMAN: Sure, they’re well known. And they’re very well organized, and they’re very smart. They understand criminal conspiracy laws. They understand the First Amendment. And they take advantage of those in training their operatives to go out and do these activities. And the point I was trying to make is — is that we can’t look at these as isolated instances. It would be as if we were investigating the mafia and looking at every mafia hitman as a lone assassin and not looking at the underlying organization that was producing these murders, you know. And these people are careful, the leadership are careful about separating themselves from the actual criminal conspiracy, you know. But they do set the motive. They set the method that’s used, and I believe that makes them part of the conspiracy. Now, I’m not saying necessarily you can make a criminal case against them, but all I’m saying is if we’re — if our number one priority is to prevent acts of terrorism, we have to pay attention to these needle factories, because that’s what they’re producing is these lone extremist terrorists. And it’s not just random violence that occurs once in a while, it’s an organized pattern of activity.

AMY GOODMAN: I remember during President Bush, the first’s presidency, Planned Parenthood trying to get the administration to talk about the whole movement of burning, bombing, attacking women’s health clinics as a conspiracy, because the same kinds of things were happening around the country, not to mention the targeting of women’s health professionals, and doctors who performed abortions. They could hardly get an audience with the Justice Department at the time, and the administration was adamant about not talking about conspiracy of these groups. What is the significance of this?

MIKE GERMAN: Well, I think the problem is if you blind yourself to the conspiracy, then the chances of them being successful in their next act of lone extremist terrorism is more likely. So, you know, again I’m not saying that we could necessarily take these leaders into court and convict them, because the whole purpose of their methodology is to separate themselves from the actual criminal activity, but what I’m saying is if we don’t pay attention to those leaders, you’re going to insure that the next group is successful, just as if we were only investigating the mafia one murder at a time and not looking at the underlying organization.”

The History Channel has a documentary this week — June 15th and 16th — about Army of God assassin, James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of the murder of abortion provider Barnett Slepian of Amherst, New York. While the U.S. has not designated Army of God as a domestic terrorist organization, The History Channel calls it one — and rightfully so in my view. The film is titled “MANHUNT: The Hunt For James Kopp.”

Army of God members have carried out a campaign of bombings, assasinations, kidnapping, arson threats and intimidation for a generation. An HBO documentary film a few years ago, titled Soldiers in the Army of God underscored the group’s violent intentions. (For more on the Army of God and antiabortion violence, see Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.)

Kopp, who is also the primary suspect in a series of shootings of abortion providers in Canada in the 90s, was the editor of what has come to be known as the “Army of God Manual.”

The manual is an instruction manual of how to blomb, blockade, and otherwise attack clinics. It describes itself as “a manual for those who have come to understand that the battle against abortion is a battle not against flesh and blood, but against the devil and all of the evil he can muster among flesh and blood to fight at his side.”

It also calls the United States “a nation ruled by a godless civil authority that is dominated by humanism, moral nihilism and new age perversion of the high standards upon which a Godly society must be founded, if it is to endure.”

And after offering detailed instructions on how to build ammonium nitrate bombs — the same kind of ‘fertilizer bomb” that Tim McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City — and “homemade C-4 plastic explosive,” it suggests maiming abortion doctors “by removing their hands, or at least their thumbs below the second digit.”

I have no idea if this film is any good. But the fact that it was made and is airing serves as a reminder that we have a problem, albeit of a different nature and scale than elsewhere — of home grown religiously motivated violence in the United States.

I have in recent months written a great deal about the bogus-history-based Christian nationalist movement. (I also discussed this a great deal in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.) Most if not all of the leaders of the Christian Right advocate the the view that the U.S. once was — and must be yet again, a Christian nation. But a reasonable study of history shows that the framers of the Constitution not only did not found the United States as a Christian nation, indeed, they were explicitly rejecting the idea.

History is a powerful and vastly underused tool in support of religious freedom and separation of church and state — and in opposition to Christian nationalism and the theocratic Christian Right. Jonathan Hutson has also persuasively written on this point at Talk to Action.

Bruce Prescott has scooped up today’s buzz of the blogosphere on the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a landmark document in American history for many reasons:

“The Anniversary of the Treaty of Tripoli: Two hundred and eight years ago today, President John Adams (F-MA) signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Three days earlier the U.S. Senate had unanimously approved the treaty. Why is this important today? Because Article XI of the treaty was a proclamation that the ‘Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselman (Muslims).’ Upon signing the treaty Adams issued a statement which said, ‘Now be it known, That I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article hereof.’”

See Bruce’s site for more, and some interesting links.

And while we are at it, let’s not cede our history — or our future — to the snake-oil salesmen of Christian nationalism.

The Tupelo, Mississippi-based American Family Association, founded by United Methodist minister, Rev. Don Wildmon, has been a leading Christian Right organization for a generation.

In recent years, AFA has developed syndicated radio program, American Family Radio, which it claims airs on about 200 stations around the country.

Wildmon and some of his senior staff recnetly engaged in a xenophobic discussion of the recent election of Antonio Villaraigosa, according to an account of the program by Max Blumenthal of Media Matters for America. (The organzation has, for some time, been monitoring the news and public affairs programs of Christian Right media outlets.) Among other things, American Family Radio’s Fred Jackson claimed that the recent election of Antonio Villaraigosa as mayor of Los Angeles was “a direct result of… illegal immigration.”

Jackson claimed that “that scenario… is going to repeat itself in communities across the United States.” He went on to say that “…the problem is, like brother Don [Wildmon] said, we don’t want to have two nations within our borders that can’t communicate with one another and natural hostility will develop.”

If there is a “natural hostility,” it would appear to be emmanating from Jackson and Wilmon.

Incidentally, Wildmon’s “ministry” is an excellent example of how some of the Christian Right is not part of explicitly conservative denominations. Historically, the Christian Right has had a significant and growing base in mainline Christianity as well. This has often resulted in the development of conservative and evangelical factions, (sometimes financed and egged on by outside agencies), that are at odds with the rest of the denomination, creating tension, division and gridlock.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

In a blatant run around the wall of separation between church and state, the Department of Health and Human Services is bankrolling the Pennsylvania-based John Guest Evangelistic Team’s religiously oriented chastity program The ACLU has filed a federal lawsuit. And Cynthia Cooper of Women’s eNews has a report.

“The Silver Ring Thing,” writes Cooper, “is a live three-hour, high-tech sound, light and video show complete with actors and comedy sketches with a stated mission to impress teens to promote teen chastity and so-called Christian values.”

“The mobile shows — set up in churches, conference centers and other venues around the country–culminate with teens pledging abstinence until they present a silver ring that symbolizes their celibacy to their spouse on their wedding day… The $15 silver rings that teens are encouraged to buy for the ceremony are inscribed with a biblical reference of 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, which reads ‘God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honor.’”

The Silver Ring Thing newsletter, Cooper reports, “mentions Jesus Christ 17 times in 8 pages. ‘Who would have ever thought we would see the day when promoting sexual abstinence among students would become an opportunity to communicate the Good News of the Gospel?’ the newsletter asks.”

Womens eNews is a free, daily news service “covering issues of concern to women and their allies.”

Check it out.

[Crossposted from Talk to Action]

As I reported yesterday, there was widespread community response to the invasion of Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers to several towns in eastern MA on Sunday and Monday. The Lowell Sun has a story on the protests and counter protests in Dracut and Bedford on Monday titled: “Signs of tolerance meet signs of hate”

The Sun also reported on the successful efforts of blogger Lynne Lupien “to beat the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church’s anti-gay group at its own game netted $606″ for MA gay rights organizations.

“…Lupien’s new Web blog, www.leftinlowell.com, encouraged those opposing the Westboro group and its leader, the Rev. Fred Phelps, to pledge whatever they pleased for each minute the Phelps group protested locally.

“So between the hour and a half they were at the Tsongas Arena Sunday and the half-hour they were in Dracut Monday, we raised the money,” said Lupien, a local activist and member of Greater Lowell for Peace and Justice. It worked out to $5.05 per each minute…”

Meanwhile, it has come to my attention that the Anti-Defamation League has an excellent report summarizing not only the background of Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church and thier vulgar and bigoted anti-gay activities, but thier track record of anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and overtly anti-American statements. It is a useful resource for communities faced with visits by Phelps’ travelling carnival of hate.

Blogger and social justice activist Lynne who writes Left in Lowell has done a fine thing.

Picking up on a tactic pioneered by pro-choice activists, Lynne organized a “pledge a picket” campaign in response to an invasion of Dracut and Lowell, MA by the roving hate monger Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas and his band of cult followers. (Abortion clinics have used this tactic for years as a fundraiser — the more pickets show up, the more money raised for the clinic.)

Lynne reported that Phelps was in the area to protest, among other things, Lexington High School’s graduation ceremonies because of the school’s strong gay/straight alliance group; and Dracut’s Englesby Intermediate School because the subject of a 12-year-old girl’s winning Women in History essay was Ellen DeGeneres. Phelps’ group described these schools to The Boston Hearld as “fag infested moral cesspools.”

The Boston Globe reports that Phelps also picketed area churches, and that over 100 people attended an advance training in how to handle the situation. The Bedford Minuteman also carried a detailed article in advance of the events.

Phelps is a profoundly polarizing figure and provocateur — his signature slogan is “God hates fags.” And he is good at drawing attention to himself. People are sometimes divided about the best approach. Here is Lynne’s evaluation of that question. “On some level, I can see the point of those who didn’t want to make a big deal of their visit — because they love just getting the opportunity to spout hate on TV. I wonder though; would they still have gotten interviewed if there were no counter-protests? It’s possible, but there would be no opposite viewpoint given. And that would be unfortunate.”

Meanwhile, Lynne and her colleagues at Left in Lowell also demonstrated how effective a blog — they are free ya know — can be as an organizing tool. She had links to relevant information, details of times and places, and even links to maps and directions to the protest sites.

Phelps had 15 people. Lynne had over 70. And her pledge-a-picket effort received over $600 in pledges for gay rights groups in Massachusetts. The Lowell Sun covered the events — which were described as “uneventful.”

I am sometimes asked, what we can do in response to the Christian Right? And while I have written a great deal about that, and will certainly do more, for today, I want to focus on one important aspect. We have to do our homework. And I’d like to suggest an approach to this homework that may different than you may think.

Too often we look at the threat of the Christian Right in terms of single issues. While this is understandable, when we do this, we become like the story of the blind men, each with their hands on the elephant, trying to describe it. I think as we tackle any one issue, we need to develop a more comprehensive view in order to be more conversant with the nautre of the elephant. When we become more conversant, it will be easier to talk about what is going on, and therefore what we can do about it. Failing that, lets acknowledge that we may find ourselves winging it, with all that that may imply.

Nevertheless, for today, let’s begin by looking through the lens of anti-gay hate politics, which is currently at the cutting edge of the politics of the Christian Right, and indeed, much of the Republican Party. In order to better contend with the politics of the growing ugliness and opportunism, here is an introduction followed by some homework. (You can pick how much you want to do, and at your own pace. You’ll see.)

The current issue of Intelligence Report, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that researches and combats hate groups, offers a comprehensive overview of the history of the Christian Right’s attack on homosexuality, including an anthology of hateful rhetoric by Christian Right leaders, For example Rev. Jerry Falwell founder of the Moral Majority has said that homosexuals are “Brute beasts… part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”

“The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle.” So said then-Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, (and possible 2006 candidate for governor of Alabama) in a concurring opinion in a lesbian child custody case.

Is that just rhetoric or do they really believe it? In the case of Falwell, maybe both. In the case of Moore, I have no doubt that he believes it. In anycase, an Intelligence Report editorial, explains, “In this issue, the Intelligence Report takes a look at the religiously based crusade against homosexuals in America — a ‘thirty years war,’ as the story points out, that has intensified since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-sodomy statutes in the 2003 Lawrence decision. Key points in the report include the religious right’s repeated use of bogus ‘science’ and the bully-boy tactics of its leaders.’”

“These leaders angrily rebut charges that their cruel name-calling — public descriptions of gays as ‘perverts,’ ‘child molesters,’ ‘deviants’ and ‘evil’ people — has led anyone to violence. They say they “hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

“That is a hard one to swallow. When perpetrators of hate crimes against gays use identical words to describe their victims, you have to wonder where it began.”

The editorial also refutes the key points in the Christian Right’s arguments against homosexulality, among others, scientific and Biblical”

“Nothing in the legitimate scientific literature supports the notion that homosexuality is a ‘perversion’ or a mental illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It needs no cure.”

“Even the notion that the Bible unswervingly condemns homosexuality is open to debate,” the editorial continues. “Many scholars believe that several key passages actually are denouncing orgies and prostitution — or in the case of the town of Sodom, inhospitality — and not homosexuality.”

“There are two Old Testament passages that do appear to condemn homosexual acts, one of them calling for the death penalty. But they both show up amid a long list of religious prohibitions, including eating pork and wearing mixed fabrics, that have been abandoned by almost all contemporary Christians.”

The editorial goes on to make analogies to the rhetoric of the most virulent forms of racism and anti-semetism. But the Intelligence Report is not the only one writing about the ongoing campaign of anger, resentment and fear mongering aimed at gays, immigrants, and others.

Author David Neiwart, writing at his blog Orcinus, observes that part of what is going on is “a hatred of multiculturalism. What happens on the street level is that all of the minorities whose presence is embraced by multiculturalism are the natural first targets of this intolerance as it festers into white working-class resentment and finally action.”

Indeed, Rush Limbaugh was recently engaging in just this kind of hate-based propaganda when he attacked a high school that happens to have a fine multiculturalist curriculum.

“Remember, too,” Neiwart continues, “that multiculturalism arose specifically as a response to white supremacism — which, in fact, it replaced as the reigning national racial ethos. Those who constantly disparage multiculturalism seem oddly reticent about what they’d replace it with — except, of course, white supremacists like David Duke and Billy Roper, who are fairly clear on the subject.”

He quotes Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) as saying “I have seen what appears to be an increase in anger toward gay people and immigrants, as well as anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

PRA has been developing resources for understanding elements of, as well as the Right as a whole, for 25 years.

One useful PRA report documents the various “ex-gay ministries.” For those interested in dominionism, PRA has definitions and a set of readings. For those who are ready to really engage in more comprehensive online reading and tutorials, PRA has ‘em.

OK. I know that not everyone is going to do all of this.

But remember too, a lot of people who talk about the Christian Right, and the issues and the players, don’t actually know very much about it. And while it is not reasonable to expect every citizen, activist, blogger or elected official to become expert in all aspects of the Chrisitian Right, (frankly, I don’t know anyone who is), far more of us need to become far more knowledgeable than we are.

If we care as deeply about our values as we say to ourselves and to others that we do; if we are genuinely concerned about the extant threat to those values, doesn’t it stand to reason that we should become more knowledgeable about the nature of the threats against them so that we can develop good and effective strategies and not risk making costly mistakes?

Any comprehensive strategy necessarily involves a comprehensive understanding of the opposition. But it has been my experience that people tend to get parochial within thier issue area, the environment, labor, women’s rights, separation of church and state, whatever. But even as we focus on these things, we have to understand that there are those with a comprehensive opposition to all of these things, and that we need to adjust our knowledge and our politics accordingly. But alas, we tend to resist change — in our thinking, in our habits of language, and in our politics.

In order to best deal with the challenges of our times, we will all need to be making some changes, and soon. It will be interesting to find out what they are, and what we as individuals, as organizations, as interest groups, and as political parties we are going to do about it.

Meanwhile, the threat of anti-gay politics is real. It is obviously of most immediate concern to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. It will almost certainly be used as a wedge issue in the next round of elections just as it was in the last one. This should be of interest to a broad range of people from moderate republicans to progressive democrats in all parts of the country, regardless of thier sexual orientation. We are all in this together.

Time to go do our homework.

[Crossposted at Talk to Action]

Commencement addresses are tricky things. Most speakers go in knowing that expectations are at once very low and very high. People would love to hear a remarkable address, but they know they are unlikely to hear one, the best efforts of the speaker not withstanding. But sometimes a commencement speaker rises to the occasion, captivates an audience — and is remembered — if for no other reason, than for having done so.

Dr. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International broke through the summer haze with just such a speech last weekend at Oberlin College in Ohio. His remarks are not only available on the college web site — but they are now lighting up the blogophere. A member of the class of 2005 was so moved that he posted the speech on The Daily Kos where it is at the top of the “Recommended List” and much discussed. As one commenter wrote: “All that I can say is that I wish my days were blessed with more words that could leave me feeling like I feel right now after reading that.”

Dr. Schulz has been much in the news this week, due to Amnesty’s release of a report on human rights abuses and torture of prisoners by the United States at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Amnesty has called for an international investigation and the prosecution of any U.S. government officials found responsible.

But Schulz, a 1971 Oberlin graduate was at his alma mater to connect the values of the college to his hopes for the mission of the students as they enter the world beyond. Along the way, he told a story that I will never forget.

“In the midst of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda,” Schulz recalled, “a group of machete-wielding militiamen attacked a girl’s school in the middle of the night. The teenagers were rousted from their beds about 2:00 AM and forced to line up in the dining hall. They were ordered to separate themselves, Hutu from Tutsi, so that only the Tutsi would die. But the girls refused. A second time the commander ordered them to divide up by ethnic group. But still they refused. And finally one of the girls found her voice and, though very frightened, this is what it was reported later that she said: “We cannot separate ourselves, you see, because we are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi; we are Rwandan” at which point every one of them was slaughtered.”

“But what a legacy they leave! ‘We are not Hutu; we are not Tutsi. We are Rwandan.’ In that simple sentiment that young girl bespoke a graciousness upon which depends the salvation of the world.”

Here in the United States we do not face such unspeakable horrors. But we do live in difficult times, with much at stake. For those of us who did not happen to graduate from anything this year, and even for those of us who did, let’s adopt Dr. Schulz as our commencement speaker, and as we go forward to face the challenges of our time — let’s have the courage to be Rwandan.

Christian Reconstructionism is “arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right today.”

Thats what I wrote in my 1997 book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Its not that I thought then — or now — that everyone on the Christian Right is a Reconstructionist. Far from it. Rather, I think that the explicitly theocratic Christian Reconstructionist movement has played a catalytic role in moving large sectors evangelical Christianity from apolitical stances, to active political participation, brought distinctively theocratic ideas into mainstream discourse. And this has happened in just one generation.

“For much of Reconstructionism’s short history.” I wrote in Eternal Hostility, “it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But in recent years, its influence has grown far beyond the founders’ expectations. As Reconstructionist writer Gary North observes. ‘We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer.’”

I was surprised when Terry Gross asked me about Christian Reconstructionism in our interview on Fresh Air recently. I have been surprised every time it has come up for the past year or so, because for so long the idea that there are active modern theocratic thinkers whose views inform the contemporary Christian Right, has been difficult for a lot of people to take in.

For those unfamiliar with the term, here is how I defined it in my 1994 study of Reconstructionism in The Public Eye, the scholarly publication of the Somerville, MA-based Political Research Associates.

“Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.”

“Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: ‘The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.’”

That was pretty arcane stuff in 1994 and 1997 — but no more. The name of the Christian Reconstructionist movement’s seminal thinker R.J. Rushdoony, is even starting to become more widely known. It was also not long ago that the word “theocracy” was not uttered in mainstream political discourse in relation to the Christian Right. Now even mainstream newspapers and mainstream polititians of both major parties are using the term — not as a term of disparagement, but as a fair descriptor of the political views and actions of some Christian Right leaders.

Of course there is still a lot of adjusting going on. There are those of all political stripes who would rather we not use the term “theocracy” at all. Some, quite understandably, are afraid the term will tar their movement. Others think it is not an effective term for tarring the movement — as if that were the only legitimate use of the word. Some object to misapplications of the term. Others just have thier heads in the sand and don’t want to see that there is, in fact, an active Christian theocratic movement in the United States.

Whatever people may think of the word theocracy, the fact remains that this movement is not new. It is not going away. And it is gaining power. Because this is so, many of us are going to continue to not only use the term, but growing numbers of people will be thinking and writing about it.

There is currently a well done series of articles published on the progressive news and opinion site Truthout that is making the rounds of the blogosphere. The series includes helpful discussions of Christian nationalism and Christian Reconstructionism. Check it out.