Back in the late 1990s, Michael Doughny (of “people eating tasty animals” fame) cashed out of his .com money (getting bought out of Digex) and dedicated a good deal of his time documenting the rise of the “Biblical Army.” At the time, he was something of a lone voice in the wilderness.

He started http://www.barf.org to document his concerns. You mnay wish to check it out.

Thanks. Cool site.

“is nothing if it is not the embodiment of the liberal, humanist ideal. And that is why this sacred land has been, until quite recently, if not the home of a superior race, nevertheless a light unto the world and a beacon of hope for all humanity.”

Add to your litany of liberalism, humanism, and idealism, morality. The atheist and other non-Christian founders were moral people. They were civilized. Sadly (for you), there morality was derived from Christianity, or from a strong desire to be compatible with Christianity-based civilization.

Do you suppose that the founding fathers were all Quakers, or Baptists? They had their disagreements, but they resolved them in a Christian manner to the benefit of the greater good. It is still possible to be a Christian and a constitutional purist. You can thank 110 years of the public school system for the emergence of your “Christian fascists.” Our way of conducting education is derived from a Prussian system that was designed for the express purpose of creating a nationalist, controllable population. Americans are accustomed to allowing the government to raise their children. But cultural themes die hard, and so now there is an undercurrent of backlash against the liberalization of the school systems, perceived as socialistic and amoral (or anti-moral) these days by people who remember higher standards of morality in days gone by.

However, your “suburb-trash Christian nationalists,” although pliable, are shallow and aren’t really as much of a threat as you think they are. It is unlikely that they can be motivated to meaningful action in sufficient numbers. Even if your worst fears are realized, would it really be so bad? Christianity isn’t Islam. Adherents to Islam become more prone to violence and coercive population control the deeper they dig into their religion for meaning in practical life. Spreading the word involves the phrase, ‘join us or die.’ Adherents to Christianity (should) become more prone to humility, service, and generosity the deeper they go. The spread of deep Christianity is accomplished through gentle persuasion and reason, not coercion or even societal pressure.

Historically, Christianity has quite effectively policed itself. And by Christianity, I don't mean Catholicism. Splinter groups that begin to implement practices anathema to the core beliefs tend to fade away with time. If you stumble across somebody preaching, along with Christ, justification for murder, racism, aggressive use of force, indifference to suffering, or even a lack of kindness, you haven’t found true Christianity. But, you have found something sensational to tradition-busters, so it merits airtime. True Christianity distances itself from abortion clinic attackers, politically-persuasive preachers such as Robertson, and anything else that falls outside the tenets of loving and serving God, and being humble, kind, generous, and gracious. I have heard Christian leaders renounce and distance themselves from well-known television “Christians.” These types of statements don’t seem to get much play. Instead, we are treated to an endless loop of the original offensive or loony remark, followed by the hollow-sounding call for apologies and retractions, usually issued or instigated by the same news organ. There won’t be another Inquisition. There won’t be a resurgence of lynchings. Abortion clinic attacks are on the decline (both kinds, actually). The Reformation started Christianity’s departure from its common usage as a tool of government, and Christianity has never ceased reforming itself. How many sub-denominations are there these days, anyway? If Christianity were to field a ‘morality police’ force, which denomination would set the standards? Islam appears to be more monolithic in its view toward the things everybody finds objectionable these days: the violence and duplicity. Jihadist attacks happening right now aren’t much different in their moral underpinnings than those that occurred in the 1800s, or the 1600s, or the 1300s, etc

The best path to assuage your fears isn’t more liberalism, socialism, or Democratic hysteria. What would truly benefit you the most is a resurgence in in-depth study of the constitution and the bible, abolition of the public school system so that more people can learn to think and decide for themselves, and praise and encouragement for those who think of and serve others first. A devout Christian will always support the right to not be one. Let’s get away from this notion of limiting our exposure to the teachings, in an effort to make sure that no more become one.

I'm not quite sure what points you're making here, but let me try to respond.

Of course the liberal, humanist ideal is a moral ideal. Profoundly so. I guess I thought that that went without saying.

Certain of the so-called founding fathers considered themselves Christians, others were kind of enlightenment “theists”, but in any event, various flavors of Christianity permeated the early Americas and also Europe, from whence came many of the ideals upon which the republic was founded. I don't refute that and didn't in my essay.

My problem isn't with Christians or Christianity, per se, it's with fascists and protofascists. In this country many of these people are so-called “Christian Nationlalists,” and call themselves Christians. Rather than rehearse Goldberg's book, I 'll simply suggest you read it, or otherwise there's not much point to our conversation, since my post was mostly a book review.

Let's hope that Christianity is or will be self-policing, as you suggest. Since by some definitions of Christianity I'm a Christian myself, I guess I might be considered part of that self-correcting process.

About public schools you and I may find much to agree about and much to disagree about, but setting them up as the boogeymen responsible for a proufoundly ignorant movement like Christian Nationalism is not likely to win me over.

You ask, “would it be so bad” if the Christian nationalists took over? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “so bad”. Myself, I think the end of constitutional democracy in the United States of America would be pretty bad, yes. Call me old-fashioned on that score.

Islamofascists may be “worse” than Christofascists, but they're also much less of a threat to the USA. I mean, give me a break. OK, they did bring down the two towers in New York. But who believes that they can conquer the USA? Anybody? Have we become such a nation of cowards and scaredy cats that Al-Queda can spook us into destroying the very things that have made our country great through the centuries? If so, then, to coin a phrase, Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Pogo Stick, maybe we deserve whatever we get.

Your comments that the public schools should be abolished seem nonsensical and frightening, and I don't know what you mean by “limiting exposure to the teachings”, since I advocated no such thing.

A few final tidbits: I went to public schools through 8th grade, then to Xavier High School in Manhattan — the Jesuit-ROTC place that also produced Antonin Scalia. Also, as a Peace Corps Volunteer and later graduate student, I lived in a Moslem village for nearly three years. And I'm married into a family that has several baptist and pentacostal preachers in it.

“Of course the liberal, humanist ideal is a moral ideal. Profoundly so. I guess I thought that that went without saying.”

The classical liberal ideal was moral. What currently passes for liberalism is perceived by Christians to be anti-moral. Therefore, sadly, in today’s discourse, liberal = moral no longer goes without saying. If I have a “position” here, it is that the morality of classical liberalism was derived from Christian morality, or a strong desire to be compatible with the culture of a predominantly Christian society. You don’t have to subscribe to the doctrine of original sin and fallen man, the default state of the nature of man is evidenced by the practices of all those recently-discovered, culturally isolated jungle tribes. Why, they’re practically uncivilized! It is in the basic nature of man to indulge himself in his innate passions. The goal of all civilizations has been to cause man to restrain himself. This has been done with force, logic, peer pressure, and religion, and various combinations thereof. The Israelites, and after them the Christians, were the first religion that attempted to constrain man’s sexual passions within the confines of marriage. Upon that single precept, Western Civilization as we know it emerged, for it replaced man’s drive for sexual conquest with a drive to conquer his basic nature. Islam isn’t very different from the various idolatrous religions from whence Abraham fled so long ago, in that it encourages man to pursue some of his innate, or carnal, desires. Christians may feel like killing their enemies, but their religion tells them to pray God’s blessing upon them. Islam says, go ahead, kill them in the name of Allah.

Show me someone who fits the ticket of a Christian Nationalist, and I will show you someone who hasn’t made the effort to pursue the depths of Christianity. You’re right, though. I should read the book.

All debate on the topic is part of the self-correcting process. It would be very nice to get some other prominent religions on board. <ahem>

Why is the public school system free from blame for public behavior’s resemblance to conformist sheep in most of their lives?

I wouldn’t want “Christian Nationalists” to “take over.” I am all in favor of our Republic, and constitutional purity. It’s highly unlikely that it ever could happen in the first place. However, due to the introspective and participatory nature of non-Catholic Christianity, I don’t see how it could last. As people seek depth in their Christianity, as they go to ground, they find less and less theological support for acting upon their baser instincts. When people go to ground in Islam, they find theological support for acting upon their baser instincts.

“Have we become such a nation of cowards and scaredy cats that Al-Queda can spook us into destroying the very things that have made our country great through the centuries?”

I’m not sure that certainty about this is available.

“Your comments that the public schools should be abolished seem nonsensical and frightening, and I don't know what you mean by “limiting exposure to the teachings”, since I advocated no such thing.”

What is so frightening about abolishing public schools? The more we spend on them, the poorer results we get. They function as daycare facilities, and unnecessarily prolong irresponsibility. They provide parents an easy default as marginally-involved custodians of their children. The teachers’ union is expressly advancing an agenda of eliminating all exposure to any trappings of Christianity within the confines of public school life. You can’t legislate morality, we’re told. But by George, we dare not resist forced exposure to things that Christians find immoral, such as teaching the moral equivalence of homosexuality. I call that legislating immorality. I submit that the abolishment of the federal involvement in the public school system would be far less disruptive to society than implementing the fair tax, or going to ground with the constitution by nullifying the many over-reaching laws that abuse the “interstate commerce” clause.