Krusaders for Krist's Kingdom

My friend Andrew from Zion's Herald keeps tabs on groups like the Institute on Religion and Democracy -- a Scaife-funded PR-tank dedicated these days to attacking mainline Protestant denominations. (Part of IRD's current mission is to take over the spiritual renewal groups in these denominations and convert them into a partisan, political machine.)

He sends along this link to an article by longtime IRD hatchetman Mark Tooley.

I should warn you -- if you follow that link you'll be taken to a site with the title "KKK kkk Ku Klux Klan jew Jew kkk KKK judaism."

The Klan, it seems, is very excited and very pleased with the latest from Tooley. They've reprinted his article because, well, they couldn't have put it better themselves.

The Klan page also includes an enthusiastic endorsement of an antigay rally organized by Donald Wildmon's American Family Association.

Both Tooley and AFA have, apparently, requested the Klan site to stop posting such enthusiastic endorsements because, you know, it looks bad and forces them to spend time distancing themselves from the KKK -- valuable time that they therefore cannot spend gaybashing and otherwise carrying out their parallel agenda in arenas regarded as more respectable than those too blatantly associated with the work of America's oldest homegrown terrorist organization.

Comments

[Andrew Brown]

Oh, the IRD is scaife-finded? I think it tried to set up here in the colonies some years ago ...

[Harv]

Here are some interesting quotes from the mission of the IRD:

Speaking of the church leaders who have lost their way: "They have thrown themselves into multiple, often leftist crusades – radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, sexual liberation and so forth."

Since when was "pacifism" or "multi-culturalism" a radical, leftist crusade? Doesn't biblical teachings provide some pretty clear examples of both those idealogies? And does that then mean that the "rightist crusades" are pro-war and racist? Just wondering.

Also read this one:

"Even today, the triumph of democracy is far from assured. In our own society, cultural trends are sapping the virtues and institutions of “civil society” necessary for democratic life. These worrisome trends include an extreme emphasis on the autonomous individual, the elevation of rights over responsibilities, a hostility toward definitive moral standards, an excessive dependence upon the state to solve all problems, and the cultivation of divisive identity politics. Perhaps the most serious threat to American democracy comes from the fragmentation of the family, the building block of society."

Two thoughts come to mind - one, what does any of these terrible trends have to do with religion? Two, is the building block of society *really* family? I have never actually heard that view defended with evidence. Are families necessary for a society to function? Again just wondering....

[Mark]

Families of some kind, sure. In most societies, they're extended families or clans. The nuclear family is an aberration. Anyway, you can't really refute the claim that the family is "the building block of society" until they tell you what they intend "building block" to mean and to how many decimal places.

But the larger problem is that they're not trying to convince you of anything. This is an appeal to their base, and they're required to recite the litany. This includes all kinds of contradictory statements (notice that "the autonomous individual" is the bad guy at first, but later it's "excessive dependence upon the state"; similarly "pacifism" and "revolutionary socialism", and of course there's the tension between being pro-family and asserting that the huge majority of family structures are Evil, Bad, and Wrong) that are thrown in because every wacko faction of their base has a particular obsession and will feel slighted if it doesn't get a line in the litany. And every wacko faction has a few dollars to contribute.

[Harv]

Mark - hit it right on the head in regards to the "family" definition. Obviously this group views the nuclear family as the one ordained by God. I'd be willing to bet that all sorts of non-nuclear family types have been integral parts of many civilized societies since the dawn of civilized societies.

Thanks for clarifying!

[goboard]

I love reading the "Left Behind" blogs, but to resort to an associative fallacy worthy of the NRA is disappointing.

Sure, IRD is quoted by the KKK. Other groups are ostensibly promoted by them as well. Like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is also apparently upset about being linked to the KKK site.

While the best attack-response by the KKK has been to claim that people not wishing to be associated with them are hypocrites for not separating issues from image, Tooley recently came out with a post showing disgust for this obvious baiting tactic.

He also reminded his readers that the UM church takes an official stance for marriage between a man and a woman, which is being compromised by a UM organization holding this conference. Regardless of your personal opinion about IRD, Tooley is correct as far as the facts go.

In public documents from 1996, Richard Scaife funded a variety of interest groups including well-known university think-tanks and a public television special. If you look at the spending proportional to other recipients, you can see that Scaife has funded IRD at relatively low levels. It would be unfair to imply that Scaife has an overwhelming preference for IRD's mission, or that IRD is part of a Scaife hegemony.

Play nice, please. I expect better.

[Ray]

Anyone have a link to a version of the article not hosted by the KKK?

[aunursa]

I don't think guilt-by-association is a valid criticism. Just in the past few weeks, David Duke and Stormfront have been very excited and pleased with Cindy Sheehan.

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350

[aunursa]

In case anyone gets the wrong idea, I should have written "anti-Semitic, White-supremacist racists and bigots David Duke and Stormfront" in the above comment.

[Ray]

The question is, is X saying something that is actually [racist/antisemitic/bigoted], or are innocent comments being deliberately misinterpreted in a way that lends support to [racist/antisemitic/bigoted] people? Which is why I'd like a link to somewhere else that hosts the article Fred is talking about.

[David]

http://www.redeemthevote.com/rtvnews30.html

http://www.ucmpage.org/news/um_homo_convo2005_3.html

[Harv]

In response to goboard's post, specifically the part about Tooley being correct on the use of the facility being against UM policy:

The info I have read makes it clear how the conference center's administration interpreted the policy. As I read it, the idea was that the group holding the conference *is* in fact a recognized group within the UM church, and that merely *expressing* ideas in opposition to overarching UM policy was not cause enough to turn the group away. It was still a group that sought to bring people to a fuller understanding of the Christian faith.

I commend the administrators of the center for allowing the conference despite opposition, if only because it opened opportunity to dialogue on the issue. I also read that the group sponsoring HEarts on Fire was glad that the IRD was distanced from the KKK and other hate groups - meaning they respect the right of others in the UM body to express opposition in ways that are not hateful.

Back about ten years ago I remember a private conversation I had with Fred Clark regarding the church's response to homosexuality, and a point he made has always stuck with me (this is my recollection of the point - Fred's may differ):

Until the church can get to a point where they can have real, open, non-combative discussion about it, there would be little if any progression towards a rational response to homosexuality within the church.

At the time we both thought that we'd see that shift in a few years - I think we are all still waiting for it to happen. But maybe things like this use of UM facilities by Hearts on Fire can are an indication that some within the church are ready to put down the weapons and really talk.

[Rix]

Few anti-gay demonstrators showed up at the "Hearts on Fire" convocation at Lake Junaluska. Reconciling Ministries Network, the sponsoring group of Methodists (not officially recognized by the denomination), was only mildly concerned anyway, since they were meeting at a comfortable UMC retreat/vacation resort. Of course, the victims of Katrina became a major matter of concern there.

[inge]

I'm not up to date on the lingo. I read the paragraph quoted by Harv and thought, well, they have a couple of really good points...

These worrisome trends include an extreme emphasis on the autonomous individual

"Leave the city, but we won't provide you with transport. In fact, mass transit has just been shut down. As autonomous individuals, if you chose to stay, it's all your fault."

the elevation of rights over responsibilities

Like going shopping for houses or shoes, or enjoying your vacation instead of doing your job.

a hostility toward definitive moral standards

Yepp, too many people thinking that killing, coverting thy neighbors' goods, lying, torture et. al. is OK if they are the ones doing it.

an excessive dependence upon the state to solve all problems

All those pork-stuffed bills, laws to protect the interests of businesses too lazy to deal with competition in the marketplace...

and the cultivation of divisive identity politics.

"If they're black, they're looters!"

Perhaps the most serious threat to American democracy comes from the fragmentation of the family, the building block of society.

Hard to care for a family if you're desperately poor.

If I took the time I could get out the bible quotes on all that. Matthew 25:31-46 go a long way, so would Mathew 5:43-48.

[Mainline Protestant]

goboard said: "He also reminded his readers that the UM church takes an official stance for marriage between a man and a woman, which is being compromised by a UM organization holding this conference. Regardless of your personal opinion about IRD, Tooley is correct as far as the facts go."

The United Methodist Church meets in a General Conference every four years to determine the "official stance" on, well, everything. Which means that anything that is an "official stance" at the moment many not be after the next General Conference.

Therefore it is considered normal for Methodist groups to talk about issues and even plan strategies on how to get their particular "stance"..."official."

The Institute is whining. Their POV won the day at the last General Conference in 2004 and now they want the other side to sit down and shut up. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the United Methodist Church.

Rather than whining about the opposition, they should be trying to build consensus. Rather than trying to whip up controversy, they should be building support for their POV among the rank and file of Methodism.

Here's the thing, that approach would require rational, informed discussion of their particular POV - the Biblical basis for it, the empirical evidence that society functions better with a restrictive definition of marriage and family.

Unfortunately, the Biblical stuff only works if you read the Bible literally which is something this country rejected over 100 years ago, and I have yet to see any conservatives anywhere offer any empirical data on the "building blocks of society."

[jami]

i like "PR tank." thanks.