Confronting Theofascism in the Usa

In the Republic of Gilead, a Christian theocracy exists in the place of an elected secular government. The state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life based on biblical fundamentalism. Those who do not conform are pressed into service as "handmaids" and servants or deported to regions where pollution has reached toxic levels. Martial law has been declared as "hordes of guerrillas" jeopardize the stability of the Republic -- though the threat may be greatly exaggerated.

The foundation of the Gileadean regime is the control of sex and sexuality. They execute gays and lesbians; they destroy pornography and sexual clothing; they kill abortion doctors; they outlaw divorce and second marriages; and they even prevent most women from learning how to read.

Thankfully the Republic of Gilead does not exist. Gilead is merely Margaret Atwood's dystopic vision of a totalitarian theocratic state, but one that is exhaustively detailed in her novel, The Handmaid's Tale.

Influenced mainly by the Christian backlash against feminism, Atwood published her book in 1985, a few years shy of the all out "culture war" that erupted when the Christian Right movement decided to take on homosexuality, which was in turn a backlash against the lesbian and gay visibility and apparent political gains of that community in the late-1980s.

In Atwood's novel, Christian fundamentalists resort to military force to implement their vision of a theocratic state. Real-life Christian fundamentalists, however, are not so sanguine about the prospects of the U.S. being overthrown by military coup. Instead they put their energy into electing candidates -- from school boards to senators to presidents -- and that's where gay scapegoating has tremendous purchase power.

In 1992, the Christian Right mounted two unprecedented grassroots campaigns to modify state constitutions.

Oregon...

Once Christian Dominionism is seen for what it is--a fascist-leaning movement that seeks to regulate and legislate our morals, our beliefs, and our love--it is our responsibility to challenge it in a manner that matches the seriousness and importance of this threat. Education, vigils, dialogue, and other "peaceful" gatherings certainly have their place, but they are not enough. A message must be sent to Friends of the Family, Dobson, Bauer and their followers that authoritarian vision and has no place on our air waves, on our television screens, in seats of illegitimate power, or in our city.

But what form should that "message" take?

There are different ideas within movements opposed to Christian Dominionism on this question. Those ideas are largely informed by one's opinion and analysis of CD's leaders and followers. Often, both these leaders and their followers are seen as misguided, but not bad people. They need to be shown the light rather than fought. The rhetoric used by this movement plays a big part in this perception. The word "love" is used frequently as a motivating emotion for actions and ideas. Especially for other Christians, seeing and hearing a man with a big smile talking about the love of the Lord and the need for Christian compassion can be very compelling.

Indeed, many in the rank and file of this movement can be very sweet, caring people. Someone who truly loves their family and also loves God is hard to denounce as a fascist, especially for other Christians. Yes, many of these believers are well-intentioned, but as the proverb goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Historically, many monstrous movements have been made up of nice enough people who "just love their country." This movement is similarly made up of nice enough people who "just love their Lord."

Noam Chomsky said in the film "The Corporation" that it was possible to have a slave owner who was very benevolent, nice to their slaves, and overall a good person. But that person is ultimately still part of a monstrous