-Caveat Lector-
http://www.neopagan.net/ReligiousReich.HTML
Understanding the Religious Reich 1.5
or
How Fundamentalists Define "Religious Freedom"
Copyright © 1990, 1999 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
"Deeply hath sunk the lesson thou hast given and shall not
soon depart."
-- William C. Bryant
Introduction, Summer '99 c.e.
A few years ago, Neopagan newsletters and journals were
publishing articles about a religious freedom organization
(now defunct), that had been founded by Christian
fundamentalists and which had invited Neopagans to join. The
response from Neopagans at the time was, I believed, naive.
That led to the first publishing of this essay in 1990 under
the title, "Can We Trust 'Friendly' Fundamentalists?" During
the 1990s, organizations such as the Moral Majority and the
Christian Coalition almost completely took over the Republican
Party on a local and state level, and bragged about their
abilities to control the results of elections. By the mid-90s,
they were riding high and convinced that they had essential
control over the Congress, if not the rest of the national
government.
However, Republican Representatives and Senators failed to
drive Bill Clinton out of office amid a bewildering (to them)
amount of high public support for the President. That support
was rooted, I believe, not only in a good economy, but also in
three other factors: (1) the common cultural expectation that
a nation's ruler is supposed to be a "stud" (thus fullfilling
the Indo-European "Third Function" of fertility, for example);
(2) the quiet agreement of the average American male that if
he were the nations primary "power object," he too would
probably take advantage of the many women approaching him as
such; and (3) the simple fact that most Americans simply don't
care about a politician's sex life, as long as it doesn't
interfere with doing his or her job.
Only now is the "Religious Right" beginning to realize and
admit that it has already lost the "culture wars" with the
rest of modern society. This bitter pill is combining with
millenial fever to put some fundamentalist Christian leaders
into a frenzy. Many of them actually hope that the dreaded
"Y2K Bug" will lead to a collapse of the national and state
governments, so that they can use their already existing
political networks and militia groups to take over in the
"power vaccuum". When 2001 c.e. arrives and neither the longed
for "Armageddon" nor their "Second Coming" has occurred, their
political and cultural power will be finally, irreparably,
broken.
History, however, shows that opponents are often most
dangerous when they have accepted defeat and no longer care
about their own survival -- just the destruction of as many
enemies as they can take down with them. In these dangerous
times, American Neopagans, and all others who cherish our
constitutional freedoms, should improve our understanding of
what fundamentalism is, of the long-range plans of "Christian
Reconstructionism," and of what a fundamentalist considers
"religious freedom."
Defining "Fundamentalism"
Throughout this essay I'm going to be referring to
"fundamentalists," so perhaps I should clarify the term. Let
me start, as I so often do, with a historical review of the
term -- on this occasion quoting from the 1964 edition of A
Handbook of Theological Terms, by Van A. Harvey:
Fundamentalism is a name that was attached to the
viewpoint of those who, shortly after the turn of
the [19th-20th] century, resisted all liberal
attempts to modify orthodox Protestant belief or to
question the infallibility of the Bible in any
respect. The name is derived from a series of tracts
published between 1912-14, entitled The Fundamentals
that aimed at defining and defending the essentials
of Protestant doctrine. The most important of the
fundamental doctrines were (1) the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, (2) the doctrine of the
Trinity, (3) the virgin birth and deity of Christ,
(4) the substitutionary theory of the atonement, (5)
the bodily resurrection, ascension and second coming
of Christ (parousia).
Since most of these beliefs have been a part of
Christian orthodoxy [for fifteen centuries],
historians have seen the uniqueness of
fundamentalism to consist in its violent opposition
to all beliefs that seem opposed to some teaching of
the Bible. In the twenties and thirties, this
opposition was focused particularly on any theory of
man's [sic] origins, especially evolution, that
seemed incompatible with the account in Genesis.
Consequently, fundamentalism tended to be identified
with blind opposition to all critical inquiry.
Because of this identification, certain conservative
theologians who share the above-described beliefs
but who think they can be defended in a rational
manner have tended to shirk the name
"fundamentalist" and call themselves "evangelical
conservatives." They generally oppose the spirit of
ecumenism and any theology, including neo-Reformed
theology, which does not regard the Bible as the
absolute and infallible rule of faith and practice.
The term "fundamentalist" has since been extended by the mass
media to refer to "fundamentalist" Jews, Moslems, and even
Hindus! In each case, the inference is that some people refuse
to budge from the most conservative version of their faith
that is available to them. Non-Christian examples include some
Orthodox Jews and Shiite Moslems. Christian but not Protestant
examples would be conservatives within both Roman and Eastern
Orthodox Catholicism, as well as Mormons (though non-Mormons
often consider them "non-Christian"). Nontheistic examples
would include most Marxists and Secular Humanists, as well as
other fervent atheists.
For the purposes of this essay, I could simply refer to
"ultra-conservative monotheists," but "fundamentalists" is
somewhat shorter and the modern Christian Protestants who call
themselves by this term are, in fact, the primary threat to
our lives and freedom right now. So on those occasions when I
don't specifically mention it, you may keep in mind all the
others mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The Unholy Trinity
The primary emotions driving fundamentalists are an Unholy
Trinity of anger, hatred and fear: anger that there are other
religions in the world (implying the possibility that their
own fundamentalism might not be the One True Right and Only
Way after all); hatred of these other faiths and their
followers for daring to exist and refusing to immediately
convert; a fear that if these other faiths are allowed to
continue to exist, they will seduce the fundamentalists'
membership away, and an even deeper fear that if their
fundamentalist beliefs are actually incorrect, then they will
have essentially wasted their lives avoiding opportunities for
happiness in the here-and-now while chasing their "pie in the
sky when they die" (which is not relevant for the atheist
fundamentalists).
While psychological analyses of their religious beliefs
infuriate True Believers, they can nonetheless be quite
revealing to outside observers. It seems obvious to me that
this Unholy Trinity is a religious expression of the severely
dysfunctional childhoods so common to fundamentalists. The
emotional repression involved in being raised as a
fundamentalist tends to breed anger, hatred and fear towards
yourself and the world around you.
Fundamentalism, with its pervasive sense of guilt about most
normal physical and emotional feelings, and its patriarchal
structure wherein the father's word is law, creates family
atmospheres in which emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse
of children is the rule, not the exception. Such abuse, now
being publicized thanks to organizations such as
Fundamentalists Anonymous, Walk Away, and various incest
survivors' groups, can't help but create personalities in
which legitimate anger, hatred, and fear towards their abusers
is redirected inwards, creating the guilt and shame so useful
for fundamentalist religious authorities. Later in life, these
painful emotions can be redirected again, this time towards
"safe" targets -- people with different religious and moral
convictions than those one's family claims.
Again, I'm using the term "fundamentalists" very broadly. I've
heard similar life histories from people raised as Orthodox
Jews, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses -- and I can clearly
remember the patterns from my own Roman Catholic childhood.
The Unholy Trinity is exhibited in other ways that have
affected all of Western history: anger towards ambiguity (why
can't Mom/Dad/Siblings be predictable?); hatred towards women
(why didn't Mom protect me?); and a generalized fear of the
entire world (what awful thing will happen to me next?). The
resulting emotional turmoil from these factors can't help but
effect the overall worldview, and thus the religious beliefs
and actions, of the victims.
Arguing with Fundamentalists
Many people of good will are naive enough to think that they
can logically persuade fundamentalists to be more tolerant.
Unfortunately, trying to discuss religion with a
fundamentalist is somewhat like trying to discuss color theory
with people who can only see black and white. When you try to
point out, however diplomatically, that their vision is
limited by their inability to see red, green, blue or yellow,
they will insist that it is your view that is the limited one,
because you can't see that a black and white worldview is more
accurate in some ultimate way. If you suggest that the
universe is more complex than their dogmatic divisions of
"100% Truth" vs. "100% Falsehood," they will accuse you of
being dogmatic, because you refuse to consider the possibility
that their dogmas might be 100% True. Their next step is
usually to denounce you as demonic, or the dupe of demons, for
thinking that there might be any Truth outside their
particular denomination's version of their scriptures.
More sophisticated (or pretentious) fundamentalists will
suggest that critics of fundamentalism should try to raise
objections which show that it "fails" on "its own terms," not
"your" terms. This, of course, is impossible, not because
fundamentalism has no gaping holes in its theology (it has
many, as any moderate or liberal Christian minister will be
happy to explain), but because it is a closed logic system
that defines itself as always True and all differing views as
always False -- hence logical "failure" can never be
demonstrated because it literally cannot be perceived by the
fundamentalists. The closedness of the fundamentalist logic
system is turned into a "virtue" by references to "the
theological fallacy of testing God's authoritative word by
extrascriptural standards." As for what they assume "your"
terms are, this is always a simplistic cartoon that distorts
-- and blurs together -- every competing view on the planet
into a dualistic mirror of their own, which they then can
triumphantly "defeat" (the famous "straw man" gambit).
When fundamentalism's prime philosophical opposition came from
Scientistic atheists and agnostics, who were dualists
themselves, it was relatively easy for fundamentalists to play
this game. They are much more confused -- and threatened -- by
pluralism, relativity, and ambiguity, hence their urgent need
to reduce all complexity to the psychologically soothing, if
philosophically and spiritually bankrupt, simplicity of
dualism. More dangerously, for those of us who care about
human rights, this need for simplicity leads them to desire
secular power to enforce their opinions, which they call
"God's Law," and to eliminate all competing worldviews.
Religious Genocide and "Toleration"
The ancient Hebrews appear to have invented religious genocide
: killing the priestesses and priests of the competing deities
worshipped within their own population, then the clergy of all
the local tribes. For good measure, they also killed the
conquered tribe's adults and boys, keeping only the little
girls whom they could rape and brainwash into the new religion
of Yahwehism (and their new roles as slaves to men). The
history of what became known as Judaism is a history of
sanctimonious religious terrorism -- practiced right up to the
time when their weapons were taken away from them. While they
were a conquered people, the Jews believed fervently and
sincerely in religious freedom, but whenever they had land
again, that freedom vanished for all but themselves. Fifteen
centuries of Christian oppression made religious freedom again
a cherished ideal, but as soon as there was a chance for
another Jewish state, fundamentalist Jews were quick to
oppress the non-fundamentalist Jews and the gentiles then in
residence. The results have been the current mess you can
observe on your TV news every night.
Let's not overlook the equally charming history of Islam --
another desert monotheism that started by committing religious
genocide against local Paleopagans, enslaving their women, and
slaughtering and oppressing "unbelievers" whenever possible.
They, too, have promoted the ideal of religious freedom and
toleration whenever economic or political fortunes have been
against them, only to toss those ideals out the window when
Islam was in power. You may examine modern Iran, Afghanastan,
or any other nation in which fundamentalist Moslems are in
power for current examples.
That brings us back to the Christian fundamentalists and a
bloody history with which most Neopagans (and other western
non-Christians) are only too familiar. More men, women, and
children have been enslaved, tortured, raped, mutilated, and
murdered in the name of Jesus Christ than in the name of any
other deity in recorded history. Christians have oppressed
Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Pagans, and each other throughout
their centuries of power, preaching religious intolerance as
the word of Jehovah whenever they had the military, political,
or economic power to make it stick -- and then piously
preaching brotherhood, peace, and toleration when they didn't.
The various sayings to be found in their scriptures give
monotheists a choice of which "Trinity" to worship. They can
follow the Unholy Trinity of anger towards the unbelievers,
hatred of "sin" (ie. different moral beliefs and those who
live by them) and fear "of the Lord" (meaning, fear of
deviation from the One True Way), on the one hand; or a
somewhat holier one of peace (from the spiritual serenity
their beliefs are supposed to give them), love for all
humanity (as supposedly being fellow children of the "same"
god), and hope for a new world (here or in their Heaven).
Because of the dualism inherent in conservative monotheism,
however, individuals and sects tend to flip-flop between these
extremes. The liberals and the oppressed among them stress the
positive side of their scriptural message, while the
conservatives and those in power stress the negative side. Of
course, the conservatives often use the positive vocabulary
when proselytizing, and both the liberals and the
conservatives routinely describe each other as not being
"real" members of The Faith. This gives both varieties
"plausible deniability" for ancient and modern crimes
committed in the name of The Faith.
Why Neopagans Frighten Fundamentalists
Do fundamentalist monotheists hate Neopagans more than they do
the members of all the other competing religions around these
days? Well, not all of them do. Most of the Moslems in the
world, for example, have never heard of us. Their
fundamentalists are too busy fighting Christians in Lebanon,
Jews in Israel/Palestine, Hindus in India, Buddhists in
Indonesia, Marxists in Afghanistan, authors in England, and
liberal Moslems at home, to pay any attention to what is in
essence a Western religious movement with no appreciable
presence in the Islamic world. I'm sure though, if a Neopagan
movement starts up over there, the Islamic fundamentalists
will be quick to kill them.
Most of the fundamentalist Jews aren't paying any attention to
Neopaganism either. We're just one more non-Jewish religion
that their kids are straying off to, and we're viewed as a
form of "craziness" rather than evil. Of course, some rabbis
have noticed that many Neopagans are "offering our cakes to
the Queen of Heaven," just like the Caanites whom their
predecessors slaughtered so many years ago, so we are causing
some additional fear and loathing.
It's the Christian fundamentalists, however, in whom we
inspire the greatest anger, hatred, and fear. They routinely
denounce Buddhism, Taoism, the New Age, and all other
competing belief systems, just as they have always done, but
seem to save their greatest vituperation for occultists in
general and Neopagans (especially Witches) in particular. As
most Neopagans know, Christian fundamentalists are constantly
publishing and broadcasting blasphemies against our deities,
slanders against our members, and half-truths and outright
lies about our beliefs and practices. Over and over, they
strive to convince the general public, the media, and the
civil governments that we are devil worshipping murderers,
rapists, child abusers, and even cannibals. Their kids beat up
our kids in school, their adults vandalize our stores and
temples, shoot bullets through our windows, and manipulate the
courts to remove our children from us. Why? What is it about
Neopaganism that makes Christian fundamentalists so desperate
that they will repeatedly violate their own "Ten Commandments"
to try and stop us?
There are a number of theological reasons why fundamentalists
of any monotheistic persuasion would find Neopaganism
disturbing; after all, we disagree with them about almost
everything they consider important. But so do the Buddhists,
the Taoists, the Hindus, and most of the other "new" religions
on the American religious scene. The real reasons for the
severity of fundamentalist attacks on the Neopagan community
are, as usual, not theological at all.
We believe in magic -- that anyone can learn to do miracles.
That makes their Christ (assuming he ever actually lived --
still an open question among non-fundamentalist historians)
merely another famous magician among many. This destroys the
main body of "evidence" for special claims of his divinity and
thus for the fundamentalists' special position as holders of
The Only Truth.
Neopagans believe in pluralism and multiplicity -- making us
very hard to pin down and define, and bringing up dreaded
"feminine" ambiguity. Worse, we worship goddesses, our women
have places of honor and leadership, and gay and lesbian
people are seldom discriminated against. These attitudes
threaten both the male egos that control fundamentalism and
the inherent sexism of their way of life, and present the
terrifying danger that fundamentalist women and girls (not to
mention any gay men and boys unlucky enough to be born into
fundamentalist homes) might find our religions far more
attractive than their own -- which, of course, many do!
Perhaps worst of all, those of us who call ourselves Pagans,
Druids and Witches have deliberately chosen to identify
ourselves with the victims of conservative monotheism -- with
the millions upon millions who have suffered at their hands
down through the centuries. While reincarnation has not been
officially accepted belief in monotheism for the last thousand
years or so, a certain wave of fear must still pass over the
fundamentalists when they realize, however subconsciously,
that we just might be their victims come back from the grave
to haunt them for their crimes, and that this time when they
try to silence us, they will fail.
But silencing us is something that they must at least attempt
-- and not only because we are a healthy, growing competitor
in the marketplace of religious ideas. As a pluralistic,
decentralized, feminist, ecological, and democratic collection
of religions, we represent the future of faith in a world of
ever-increasing change and diversity. Fundamentalists know
that the world is changing and that they cannot control the
changes. They are horrified of the future and anything that
reminds them of it. Neopaganism combines a revival of old
deities that the fundamentalists have been taught from
childhood were "demonic," with patterns of belief and practice
that fit perfectly with the new global culture now emerging.
The Fundamentalists have no psychological options left. They
either have to cure themselves of the dysfunctional
personalities that have made them fundamentalists, or (being
dualists) try to silence us. Guess which tactic they usually
choose?
The Religious Reich and Christian Reconstructionism
In recent years, the United States and other western countries
have seen the rise of what I call the "Religious Reich," led
by fundamentalist Christian men with literally theocratic
agendas. That the Republican Party has become an unholy owned
subsidiary of fundamentalist preacher Pat Robertson's
Christian Coalition has become obvious to nearly everyone in
politics -- including the Internal Revenue Service, which on
June 10th, 1999 c.e. finally revoked the CC's tax-exempt
status. What many Americans don't know, however (until it's
too late), is that the Religious Reich focuses as much
attention on taking over local school boards, town halls, and
county governments, as it does on grabbing for power on the
statewide and national levels. This is part of their
long-range theocratic plan for America, which they call,
"Christian Reconstructionism." They want to take over enough
state governments to call for a constitutional convention
(they are only a few states away from that goal). At such an
event they could legally scrap our current Constitution and
the entire Bill of Rights, replacing them with their own
twisted vision of "Biblical Law."
If they succeed in taking over America because the rest of us
were too lazy to fight them and too cynical to bother voting -
or if their cherished "cultural collapse" should occur -- they
fully intend to institute the death penalty for being
homosexual, for having or performing (or assisting someone to
have or perform) an abortion, for living in "sin" (including
all "unconventional" partnerships, lovestyles, and family
structures), for practicing "witchcraft" (any minority
religious, metaphysical, astrological or New Age belief
system), and for having or distributing "pornography."
I know it sounds unlikely that anyone could think this way in
modern times, but remember, their predecessors have been
terrorizing "unbelievers" for centuries, slowing down only
when they lost political power. Today they're close to
regaining the secular power they lust after, thanks to
gaybashers, anti-feminists, Klu Klux Klanners, dozens of
right-wing millionaires, and thousands of Fundamentalist
preachers, Catholic priests and Orthodox rabbis who see their
livlihoods and power threatened by sweeping global change.
They depend on the votes of millions of modern "Know-Nothings"
who are terrified of the future and willing to vote for
whoever their preacher/priest/rabbi tells them to.
One excellent book that will give you the lowdown on the
Christian Coalition's founder and plans is The Most Dangerous
Man in America? by Robert Boston. It's a pretty scary book, at
least for anyone who cherishes their freedom pof conscience.
Don't believe me or other "liberals" on this topic? If you
want to know the sordid details, straight from the Religious
Reich's own messiah, just read The Institutes of Biblical Law,
by Rousas John Rushdoony, the ayatollah of Christian
Reconstructionism, or as his publisher describes him, "the
president and founder of Chalcedon Foundation, an educational
organization dedicated to Christian reconstruction of every
area of life and thought." That's your life and your thought
they want to "reconstruct." Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson,
Ralph Reed, and all their right-wing fundraisers praise, quote
and follow Rushdoony, who lays out his plans and goals as
clearly as Adolph Hitler did in Mein Kampf. Read it and you'll
see why I use the phrase "Religious Reich" insead of "Right."
Whether you are a moderate or liberal Christian or Jew, a
Hindu, Taoist, Unitarian, Pagan, Agnostic or Atheist --
whether you are gay, straight or bi; male, female, or
undecided; if your lifestyle, beliefs, or political views are
even the slightest bit different from those of the Religious
Reich -- you are a target. Let's not make the same mistakes
that German democrats and liberals did in the 1930's. Let's
make sure that Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and
Robert Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 both remain fiction, by
getting off our comfortable rear ends, stepping away from our
keyboards, and exercising our citizenship rights while we
still have them.
How Fundamentalists Define "Religious Freedom"
In their quest for absolute power, spokespersons for the
Religious Reich often use the language of the civil liberties
movements, in fighting what they perceive as "government
interference" in their practice of religion. Some Neopagans
say that we should work with such "friendly fundamentalists"
in a common quest for religious freedom. I urge caution and
further investigation of individuals, groups, and their
motives, before doing so.
While Supreme Court rulings interfering with the practice of
minority belief systems are offensive, and the Religious
Freedoms Restoration Act was well worth supporting, we should
not be fooled by fundamentalist references to "religious
freedom." Their complaints about "unconstitutional government
interference" with religious practices are actually about the
fundamentalists' loss of their traditional -- and very
unconstitutional -- privileges. For three hundred years,
religious zealots have been shoving their theology down our
throats, usually with the connivance of the civil government.
Where do you think most of our laws about sex, drugs and
gambling originated? From "blue laws" that close stores on
Sundays to mandatory (monotheistic) prayers at graduations,
conservative Christians have dominated the public American
culture since shortly after the Revolution. But over the
course of the last few decades courts and legislatures have
gradually taken away one after another of the fundamentalists'
special privileges. Organized prayer is no longer allowed in
schools, evolution is taught in biology classes, big city kids
can learn about safe sex and birth control methods, etc. --
all of which upsets the Religious Reich terribly.
The Religious Reich complains that the existence of rights for
secular people (including the right not to be subjected to
fundamentalist opinions) violates their rights as spreaders of
the Gospel. They argue that the separation of church and state
is itself a violation of the first admendment freedom of
religion clause, i.e., that they have the "right" to use the
government to promote Christianity as long as they aren't
pushing any particular denomination of it. Often they attack
the ACLU for its pro-separation stand, despite the fact that
the ACLU has done more to fight for freedom of religion than
any other organization in American History.
The Christian Reconstructionists of the Religious Reich would
prefer that America was a fundamentalist theocracy in which
they would have every one of their old privileges back, and a
number of new ones as well (with only fundamentalist
Christians eligible to vote, run for office, or teach in the
schools, for example). No matter how friendly, reasonable and
ecumenical they may occasionally act towards non-Christian
groups, on the day they decide they don't need us anymore they
will cheerfully rip our throats out.
Does that sound paranoid? Perhaps. But remember -- we know
their track record. Fundamentalists have never supported
religious freedom for anyone but themselves except as a
temporary tactic. They are going to have to be a lot more
convincing if they expect us to be able to trust them. I
suppose they could start by publishing apologies for, and
retractions of, all the lies that they have published and
broadcast about us over the years, signed by all the national
leaders of the Religious Reich (most of whom have told those
lies). I'm not going to hold my breath waiting, however.
Real Religious Freedom Organizations
I highly recommend that Neopagan and other liberal religious
people be prepared to take magical action to defeat the
magical malpractice of fundamentalist "prayer warriors" and to
prevent unconstitutional and dishonest plots by the Religious
Reich by casting Spells for Democracy. But magic/prayer is
always most effective if it is backed up with physical action.
Fortunately, those of us in the Neopagan community who are
looking for genuine religious freedom groups to join do have
some trustworthy choices. There's always People for the
American Way (2000 M St. NW, #400, Washington DC 20036). This
group has pluralistic, feminist, and democratic biases fully
in keeping with Neopagan polytheology. They have been keeping
tabs on the Religious Reich for over fifteen years and their
website contains a wealth of information the fundamentalists
would rather you didn't read. I'm a member and I recommend
them.
http://www.pfaw.org/aboutrr.htm
The other major force fighting the Religious Reich is
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1816
Jefferson Place NW, Washington, DC 20036), a nonprofit,
nonpartisan educational organization of moderate and liberal
Christians, Jews, Unitarians, Atheists, Agnostics, and yes, a
few of us Pagans! You can visit their website or send email to
their net liason at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Their phone number is
202-466-3234. Their newsletter, Church & State is an excellent
source of news and advice on the fight against theocracy. I'm
a member and I recommend them.
Also worthwhile is The Freedom Writer, a newsletter published
by the Institute for First Amendment Studies. IFAS was founded
by ex-fundamentalist minister Skipp Porteous (author of Jesus
Doesn't Live Here Anymore and other works) and attorney
Barbara Simon. This publication, now available online, focuses
on the activities of the Religious Reich, exposing fraudulent
ministers, anti-Semitism, censorship campaigns, etc. There are
also frequent news clipping about civil liberties victories.
Those of you who were once fundamentalists might also be
interested in IFAS' former publication turned webpage, Walk
Away,written by and for ex-fundamentalists. You can send IFAS
email at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or snailmail at Box 589, Great
Barrington, MA 01230. Their phone number is 1-800-370-3329.
For keeping tabs on trends throughout the American religious
scene, I can recommend Religion Watch (Box 652, N. Bellmore,
NY 11710, $19.95 year USA). The editor, Richard P. Cimino,
does an excellent job of reporting trends in both mainstream
and minority religious movements, albeit with a moderate
Christian bias.
Of course, for civil liberties activism in general, there is
no beating the American Civil Liberties Union. I'm a card
carrying member and proud of it (even if that does mean I can
never be elected President). Controversial as the ACLU is, and
disgusting as some of their clients have been over the years,
they remain the largest and most effective defense against all
those forces (including the fundamentalists) who would trash
our Bill of Rights.
There's a group called Americans for Religious Liberty (Box
6656, Silver Spring MD 20906), founded as a front for the
Humanist Society, but I can't recommend them. The Humanist
Society is an association for atheists, agnostics and
scientolators -- people who sneer at all religions equally. If
you can put up with the kind of folks who run sleazy
"debunking" groups to attack psychics and parapsychologists,
you might find ARL worth investigating. Ask them about their
platform in which they advocate keeping "pseudoscience" as
well as religion out of the public schools.
If Neopagans are going to support civil liberties and
anti-discrimination groups, which I obviously think we should,
then we had better be selective in our choice of allies. It's
usually the fundamentalists themselves who oppress our civil
liberties. We'll be much better off setting up our own groups,
or supporting organizations that are genuinely neutral in
matters of religious belief. I don't think that we can or
should trust "friendly" fundamentalists. After all, deeply
hath sunk the lesson they have given and shall not soon
depart.
Copyright © 1990, 1999 c.e., Isaac Bonewits. This text file
may be freely distributed on the Net, provided that no editing
is done, the version number is listed, and this notice is
included. If you would like to be on the author's personal
mailing list for upcoming publications, lectures, song albums,
and appearances, send your snailmail and/or your email address
to him at PO Box 1021, Nyack, NY, USA 10960-1021 or via email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(P. E.) Isaac Bonewits, Adr.Em./ADF
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snailmail: PO Box 1021, Nyack, NY, USA
10960-1021
This webpage is copyright © 1999 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
Most recently updated: July 1, 1999 c.e.
My Homepage URL is http://www.neopagan.net
,
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
