this is a test

it is only a test

Talk to Action, the first national interactive blog site devoted to discussing the theocratic Christian Right -- and what to do about it -- launched on Monday, November 21st. I would have posted about it sooner here, but for some technical gitches.) Ths site is intended to provide a platform for the kinds of conversations that need to take place in order for us to see the strength of the theocratic movement recede in favor of a refreshed and rebounding constitutional democratic movement. That is a tall order, I know. But I think it is not only necessary, but possible. And I invite you to join us in making the vision a reality.

I have been blogging for only a little over a year -- since about two months before the election. I had added a blog to my personal, professional web site because I thought I would like to post a few items a week. I honestly knew nothing about the greater blogosphere -- then my friend Ann Rose told me about this place called The Daily Kos. It changed my life. It is a daily miracle of extraordinary writing and online political conversation unfolding before your eyes. I also learned new dimensions of what a scoop-based blog site could be this past year from Booman Tribune, My Left Wing, Street Prophets, and most recently Political Cortex -- where I was privileged to be on the inside of it's development at the same time fellow blogger Bruce Wilson and I were cobbling together Talk to Action. I am grateful to Tom Ball and my fellow Cortexans for all I have learned -- and I just hope I can continue to keep up with them!

The blogosphere is growing, maturing, and breaking new ground all the time. Talk to Action embraces what has come before, at least those parts that Bruce Wilson and I, and other of the founding Talk to Action writers have experienced of it -- but we are also striking out in some new directions.

Talk to Action will differ from other major sites in that it seeks to be less freewheeling in tone and content. Our focus is narrower -- our topic is the religious right and what to do about it. We are also putting an editorial framework on the discussion. Here is a quote from our statement of purpose:

"We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic. We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the general mission of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind. It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. Similarly, religious debates are off topic, especially debates between theism and atheism. Finally, we are nonpartisan. While political discussions are welcome, -- even central to the purpose of this site -- we do not wish the site itself to be a platform that is necessarily for or opposed to any particular party."

We are also different from other major sites in that half of our writers are new to the blogosphere. We expect that many of our readers will be as well.

But like most of the progressive blogosphere, we see the need for changes in the way that we all think and act in political life. With regard to the religious right, consider this: If what people have thought and done about the religious right so far is so smart, how come it is the most powerful faction in the GOP in the Congress? How come intelligent design is one of the biggest issues in the country? Why is it that the bedrock notion of separation of state is increasingly being called into question by top appointees to the federal bench?

I hope that Talk to Action will be a place where we can reconsider some things. Refresh our political thinking and skills -- and leave bad ideas and political habits behind. Our first post on our first day, I think epitomizes the kind of sharp-eyed analysis we want to bring to bear on history and current events. Contributing writer Esther Kaplan, author of with God on their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House, discusses a major shift in the stance of the Anti-Defamation League with regard to the Christian Right:

"It seems to have finally dawned on Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League and a highly visible Jewish community talking head, that he should stop making nice with the Christian right. Just a few years ago he was calling on American Jews to show evangelical conservatives some gratitude for their hard-line support for Israel. But last week, Foxman used the ADL's annual conference to sound the alarm about attempts to "Christianize America" .... It's great to see Abe Foxman wake up and smell the coffee."

Also featured on launch day, are Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates who has been a leading thinker, writer and activist on matters involving the religious right for 25 years; and Jonathan Hutson, an attorney and progressive Christian activist who launches a series of essays he provocatively calls "Cross Examination."

I am thrilled an honored by the remarkable group that has come together to make Talk to Action happen: In addition to Chip, Esther and Jonathan, here is the rest of the founding group of featured writers:

Joan Bokaer, founder, Theocracy Watch; Michelle Goldberg, senior writer, Salon.com; Joel Pelleteir is an artist whose remarkable painting American Fundamentalists is touring the U.S.; Michelle Murrain is a seminarian at the Pacific School of Religion; Bruce Prescott, executive director of Oklahoma Mainstream Baptists; Max Blumenthal writes about politics and religion for The Nation and The Huffington Post; Cynthia Cooper is an attorney, author, and playwright; Scott Isebrand operates the blog site Religious Right Watch; Lorie Johnson operates the blog site Dark Christianity; Carlos Stouffer operates the blog site Jesus Politics; Pastordan operates the blog site Street Prophets.

These short descriptions cannot begin to describe the depth of their knowledge, the vividness of their writing, and the originality of their thought. You'll just have to stop by, see for yourself, and enjoy their company

At this writing, we are still scrambling to add features and work out the bugs. Each time you visit -- and I hope you will -- you are likely to see changes; some large, some small. Please be patient with us. We are in this for the long run, and we hope you will be too.

If you plan on being in Boston on Sunday, November 27th, you are invited to hear my speech titled, The Dramatic Progress of the Theocratic Right -- What in the World do We Do Now?.

Phillips Brooks House, Harvard Yard, 1:30 PM.

The event, which is free and open to the general public, is sponsored by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and by the Humanist Association of Massachusetts.

Fox News biggie, Bill O'Reilly, the man who would cheer if Al Qaeda attacked San Francisco, is unapologetic. "What I said isn't controversial," he said on a conservative radio station in response to critics. "What I said needed to be said." Think Progress has the transcript and the audio.

Hunter is ratcheting up the pressure at The Daily Kos. And commenters at Political Cortex have info on who to contact to get O'Reilly fired.

The controversy is not blowing over in San Francisco where it continues to make news.

On November 8, 2005 Bill O'Reilly aired a radio broadcast that will live in infamy.

It seems that O'Reilly didn't like it when San Franciscans recently exercised their constitutional rights and passed a non-binding ballot measure urging high schools and colleges to ban military recruiting on campus. So does he criticize them? Call for a boycott? No. He says that the the American armed forces should not defend San Francisco -- and that Al Qeada should go ahead and attack.

His named target? The landmark Coit Tower, a monument dedicated to the heroic firefighters who fought to save San Francisco after the great earthquake a century ago.

Media Matters for America reports:

"Fox News host Bill O'Reilly declared on the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off-limits to you, except San Francisco."

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

San Francisco City Supervisor Chris Daly responded on the KRON 4 Morning News:

"Coit Tower's a monument to San Francisco's firefighters. They put out the fires in San Francisco after the great quake. American heroes -- they were there on Sept. 11 and now you want al-Qaida to blow up Coit Tower? Give us a break. You are out of line."

John Hanley, president of the San Francisco Firefighter's Union Local 798, was incensed.

"Coit Tower is a monument to the bravery of the men and women of the San Francisco Fire Department," Hanley said. "When Bill O'Reilly makes an attack on Coit Tower, he's attacking us and our bravery."

He added, "Mr. O'Reilly, maybe we should bring you into some of our burning buildings and see how brave you are."

O'Reilly's tirade has set off a firestorm of criticism that is unlikely to let up anytime soon. Nor should it.

"It's harder still," writes Daly on his blog, "to miss that

Bill O'Reilly is full of hate. It's fine to disagree with San Francisco's majority opinion for gun control, against the war and military recruiting, or for gay marriage. But to green-light another terrorist attack on American soil crosses way over the line. We are a diverse city with people from all walks of life. Families with children live here, Mr. O'Reilly. Your comments are chilling, un-American and make you little better than the terrorists.

Fox News and Westwood One have a great responsibility as broadcasters to the American public. Both should take immediate action to terminate their contracts with Mr. O'Reilly."

Media Matters for America has the contact info for O'Reilly and his syndicators, as well as the transcript and audio tape of the broadcast.

Over at The Daily Kos, people are talking about contacting O'Reilly's advertisers. Good idea.

O'Reilly is a anti-democratic demagogue. He is a digrace to the broadcast industry, and he should be fired from Fox News.

O'Reilly should apologize to the nation.

And then he should go away.


[Crossposted at Political Cortex]

Anti-gay politics is at the center of American life these days. Some argue that many Republican successes are predicated on the idea of "turning out the base" with this "wedge issue."  While it is not always clear that this tactic is as successful as some say, there is no question that it is taking place. Anti-gay politics is a staple of American life. So, who exactly is behind this?

Well, there are many actors, of course.  But I want to focus on just one, multidimensional player: Focus on the Family headed by Christian radio psycologist James Dobson. And I want to zero in on one aspect in particular -- Focus on the Family political operations in the states.

Several years ago, I wrote a study about state level conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, published by Political Research Associates (pdf file). There were two, related networks started in tandem in the late 1980s. One emphasized the business/libertarian part of public policy, and the other emphasized the policy issues dear to the religious right. The latter, was the network of Family Policy Councils affiliated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family.  The details have changed since I published that study, but the general trajectory remains the same. Most importantly, these groups are at the forefront of antimarriage equality campaigns nationwide, and their role as fronts for Focus on the Family are not widely understood and that Dobson's organization has active, organizational tentacle in 34 states, in addition to his radio program which is available just about everywhere.

For example, the point group in the recently defeated effort to repeal anti-discrimination laws in Maine, was the FOF affiliate, the Christian Civic League of Maine.

In defeat, the Maine FOF group immediately announced that they will now seek to amend the state constitution to ban marriage equality. When they do, they can draw on the experience of many other FOF-led efforts from around the country. For example, the point group in seeking to get an anti-marriage equality measure on the ballot in Massachusetts, is the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Some already existing local groups grafted onto FOF as state level affiliates, and others were started from scratch. And some groups have come and gone. But whatever their genesis, they are joined at the hip with Focus on the Family, just as the Family Research Council serves as the group's de facto political lobby in Washington, DC. The Family Research Council merged with FOF in 1988, but later decoupled in order to give it more flexibility politically without necessarily reflecting on the Focus on the Family. However, the distinction has always been pretty thin. Among other things, James Dobson has remained on the board of directors all these years.

Similarly, although the FOF states that the State Family Councils "have no corporate or financial relationship with each other or with Focus on the Family," this is disingenuous, since an organization must meet certain criteria to become affiliated with Focus on the Family; and must behave in certain ways in order to maintain it's standing. Some groups have been dropped over the years. Even a casual examination of the web sites of these groups will show, they have similar, although not uniform, structures, procedures, and policy agendas. But all are deeply involved in state politics, and thier activities often include voter mobilization and even distribution of voter guides.

There are currently FOF affiliated state policy councils in 34 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Have you focused on your local Focus on the Family?

[Crossposted at Political Cortex and Talk to Action]