John Dean called them “right-wing authoritarians” in Conservatives Without Conscience (CWC). George Lakoff’s research, documented in The Political Mind, described their ideal family model as the “Strict Father Model.” Frank Schaeffer writes in Crazy for God, that he and his father helped train these “domestic terrorists” who are out to destroy a nation that is not made in their image.

Here is John Dean’s description of this group of single-minded American citizens:

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march [scare] America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. … And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going away.

The Strict Father Model, as discussed by George Lakoff in The Political Mind, is based partly on the use of punishment by a male authoritarian to teach his children ‘right’ from ‘wrong.’ This punishment ranges from James Dobson’s use of objects other than the hand to eliminate the “defiance” of infants as young as 15 to 18 months, to name calling by load-mouthed talking heads, to killing doctors who perform abortions.

The Political Mind includes the following references to punishment as a critical element in the strict father family model:

You need a strict father because kids are born bad, in the sense that they just do what they want to do, and don’t know right from wrong. They need to be punished strictly and painfully when they do wrong, ….

Mapped onto politics, the strict father model explains why conservatism is concerned with authority, with obedience, with discipline and with punishment.

The pregnant teenager has disobeyed her father and should be punished …

And why are conservatives [without conscience] punitive? It is assumed, in a strict father family, that the only way to teach a child right from wrong is to punish him for doing wrong. The lack of punishment is seen as a moral failing of the strict father. Moreover, the point of punishment – that is, physical “discipline” – is to get children to discipline themselves mentally so that they will do what the father says ….

Since a refusal to punish for an offense is seen as a moral failing by a conservative, conservatives insist on strict punishment ….

In the strict father model, there is an individual responsibility and direct action operating: the father gives a directive, the child is expected to carry it out, and if not, the father punishes. …

Lakoff also highlighted the link between the strict father family model and fundamentalist Christians – CWCs.

Why are fundamentalist Christians conservative? Because they view God as a strict father: Obey my commandments and you go to heaven: if not, you go to hell. Well, I’ll give you a second chance. You can be “born again.” Now obey my commands (as interpreted by your minister) and you go to heaven; otherwise you go to hell: authority, obedience, discipline, punishment.

This explains why James Dobson, the leading exponent of strict father childrearing, is a political conservative, [and] a fundamentalist Christian ….

Frank Schaeffer, a former founder of the religious right, exposes the strict father fundamentalist Christians in his book, Crazy for God, and the extremes of some to ‘punish’ America for what it has become. If they can’t “take America back,” they eagerly await its end time.

Crazy for God is a personal story about the rise of the religious right under the guidance of his father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer. His parents started as fundamentalist missionaries then went on to work with Presidents Reagan, Ford, George H. W. Bush and Congressman Jack Kemp. Frank and his father, together with Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, and Dr. C. Evert Koop (Surgeon-General in the Reagan Administration) helped found the Religious Right, the pro life movement, and turned religion into a political movement. “One of the reasons I left the movement … it was becoming increasingly extreme. … violence … vandalism … intimidation … an insurgency … turning America into a theocracy … a western version of Iran …”

Look at what the extremist CWCs are doing to education in Texas.

Frank’s father, Francis, wrote a book, A Christian Manifesto. In this book Francis Schaeffer advocated the overthrow of the government when the political process failed to meet their fundamentalist beliefs. His father was “setting the groundwork for individuals to decide that the line [Electing a black president, performing an abortion, stopping prayer in public school, taking their guns, etc] had been crossed.” Once the line is crossed, domestic terrorism is an option.

Since the publishing of A Christian Manifesto and the death of his father, Frank Schaeffer says the domestic terrorism mantra has been taken up by Fox News and some bloviated media voices. The result is “… violence … vandalism … intimidation … an insurgency ….” Frank Schaeffer states that just as the Justice Department is investigating foreign terrorists, they should be investigating domestic terrorists. “We have a group of people in this country who are Christian, who are fundamentalist, who have within their midst, individuals who are incredibly dangerous who are waiting to go off like bombs ready to explode with the fuse lit.”

These extremist CWCs, according to Mr. Schaeffer have “a philosophical view of the world which essentially has become fundamentally anti-American.” They even hate these United States – it is now fascist. The government of the United States is evil under its new leadership. The United States has crossed too many CWC lines. In their minds, “America is so lacking in measuring up to [their] standards, that they literally want to overthrow the order that we now know.” They consider this new world order as illegitimate and “They believe they are doing God’s work.”

The CWC messengers all use “code words” to scare their followers into action. These code words allowed them to say what they said to each other in private in public. Occasionally, they slip and their private thoughts become public statements, which they later try to retract, such as 9/11 and Katrina were caused by America crossing one of their lines in the sand.

They so hate America that they “are rooting for the Apocalypse.” All those not like them “must die.” The worse the news gets, the sooner the end times will arrive. They appreciate the work of the war-mongering neocons and the chaos war brings. “The more chaos in the world, the better as far as they are concerned. It’s all signs that Jesus is on his way back. They are going to escape in the rapture. … Any body not exactly like [them] will now be killed. … Out of these groups will come some very dangerous individuals.”

Anyone care for a military coup?

The DOJ needs to monitor our evangelical, fundamentalist domestic terrorists just like they monitor international terrorists. “There are people who are inciting what we would call our unhinged lunatic fringe. … If they can’t win democratically through the election process, they will take that itself as a sign of the end times.”

In 2008, “We came within an ace of the fringe of the fringe actually becoming the heart of the American Political System.” The mainstream, non-authoritarian, conservatism of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater has been replaced by the far right of the far right with Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

Evangelical Christian leadership must be challenged to pull back from its message of hate. Moderate members of Pro Life activist groups must blow the whistle on those who would commit violent acts. The DOJ and other law enforcement must take seriously the possibility of domestic terrorism and put it on an equal footing with international terrorists.

Within the Conservatives without Conscience, there is an extremist group – “The fringe of the fringe.” This group was raised within the ideal Strict Father Model and taught to accept authority without question. Their parental authority uses strong physical punishment to enforce what he believes is right. Their religious authority uses politics to create a culture war and identify the enemies of their imaginary theocratic America. Their media authority names their enemies and defines their failures. Their economic authority makes sure the religious and media authoritarians are funded even when they can’t make it on their own.

These “domestic terrorists” understand that failure requires punishment – punishment that will teach their enemy, as they were taught, the rightness of the “far right of the far right.”

This “fringe of the fringe” group believes that if they cannot ‘retrain’ or remake their enemies in their own image, then they will pray for the end times and create the chaos that proves the end times are at hand.

Our government needs to protect all American citizens from all terrorists – foreign and domestic.

As I have posted several times in this blog, the religious right, or right-wing authoritarians (RWA), are a significant voting block in this country and they want to make major changes in our laws, our government and our way of life to suit their narrow exclusive beliefs. Well, guess who this group wants as their political leader? Right, it’s Mike Huckabee. But, did you know the Iowa Caucus was not the first time he was their number one choice.

Last September 17, 2007, Huckabee won the values voter straw poll at the Values Voter Presidential Debate. As this ‘debate’ progressed, Huckabee’s rating grew from 35 percent to 63 percent.

This ranking was based on the candidates response to a questionnaire of more than 50 questions. Here is the survey and the Republican’s candidates yes or no answers. Please take a look and see what they want of our next president and what Mike Huckabee agrees with.

This gathering of RWAs took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where they declared Huckabee “as the pro-family winner,” and most of the attendees were from the southeast. On a scale of 0 to 9, with 9 being the strongest, they rated the overall strength (or agreement with their views) of each Republican candidate. Huckabee’s scores went from 31 percent to 68 percent by the end of the gathering.

Then we have the results from the September Iowa Caucuses. One CNN story stated, “Christian conservatives are critical to any GOP presidential candidate, and Iowa is no exception. But Huckabee’s support among those voters was overwhelming, in both numbers and in intensity: As many as 80 percent of his backers Thursday were self-identified evangelicals, according to entrance polls.”

In another CNN story where the exit poll compared Huckabee to Romney, Huckabee supporters said, “that a candidate’s religious beliefs matter ‘a great deal’ overwhelmingly supported Huckabee by a margin of 56 percent to 11 percent.”

So, who are these values voters? What do they want for this country and the rest of us? What kind of republic do they want for the rest of us and why do they prefer Mike Huckabee?

Here is how they describe themselves and what that says about Mike Huckabee:

In our Declaration of Independence we determined among other things: to value our national relationship with our Creator God; to value the fact that He gave us our human rights; and to value the truth that we instituted our government — not for the purpose of creating rights — but rather for the purpose of recognizing and securing the rights that God embedded into all of human kind at creation.

We also value the right of a free people to govern themselves according to their constitutional form of government and to not be subject to tyrannical judges that legislate from the bench and subvert our constitution and the will of the American people.

For a little more insight into this group of voters and the man they want for president, here are some excerpts from their “Voters Values’ Contract with Congress.” They start off by basing it on their faith in their God and then reviewing the assault on their beliefs by liberals and progressives.

We are citizens of the United States of America and subjects of the sovereign Creator, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as the Supreme Ruler and Judge of the World.

Moved by our faith in God and this republican creed we join together now to defend representative self-government against the greatest assault it has ever faced. This assault has been more dangerous and successful because it comes from within and aims to destroy not just our physical defenses, but the moral ideas, habits and practices that sustain our character as a free people.

For some decades now supposedly “liberal” and “progressive” forces within our society have waged an insidious campaign to corrupt and destroy the moral foundations of our liberty. Under the compassionate guise of government welfare and social programs they have eroded our fortitude and self-discipline, taxed away our independent resources, and in particular undermined the centrality of family as the locus of individual self-reliance. Under the guise of sexual freedom and self-determination they have corrupted our sense of responsibility for our own offspring in the womb and for our biological relationships in general. This ultimately affects all relationships that draw upon the capacity for self-sacrifice we ought naturally to learn and practice in the context of decent family life. Under the guise of scientific knowledge, and a fallacious separation of religion from public life, they have thrown off the yoke of reason, and denied our sovereign right to acknowledge, as a people, the existence and authority of the Creator. But the Creator’s being and will represent the principle of unity that makes possible both the diversity of individuals and the orderly community that, on the whole, they may become. Thus, though they masquerade as the champions of community and compassion, these self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” have discarded the principle of unity, the sense of a common good, indispensable to both.

As the principal instrument for their assault upon the foundations of our liberty they have resorted to an abuse of the judicial system, and in particular the Federal judiciary’s assertion of supreme and unchecked constitutional power that supersedes and may arbitrarily nullify any action taken by the executive or legislative branches.

… the US Supreme Court has … created from its false reading of the Establishment Clause a pervasive hostility to religion.

… the Courts have purported to forbid prayer and other religious elements in government funded schools, activities and projects authorized by the people;

Having in this abusive fashion denied the people’s authority over their own religious affairs, power-grabbing Judges have begun a similar campaign against the general moral authority of the people.

But the Courts have also assaulted the strength of our national identity more directly: by using foreign laws in their decisions and by interfering with establishment of immigration policies.

After listing the issues that threaten their beliefs, they listed what they want from Congress and expect Mike Huckabee to support. Here are some highlights of their 30 item wish list. They include references to related House and Senate bills:

• Promotion of their God in public places including your place of work with H.R. 2389, 1070, 2679 and 1445, and S. 1046, 520 and 677.
• Make sure that marriage is only between one man and one woman with H.R. 1100.
• Securing parental rights over their children and other adults with H.R. 748, 181 and 1790.
• Secure our “God-bestowed right to life” with H.R 1357, 356, and S. 658 and 51
• Eliminating the separation of church and state and eliminating religious expression as a hate crime
• Eliminating all pornography and obscenity by making sure the First Amendment does not apply to it
• Securing our national borders, and
• An urgent call, for judicial restraint and an end to liberal judicial activism

This group of voters and Mike Huckabee are also referred to as social issue voters. In 2006, John Dean made the following statements about social conservatives in his book Conservatives Without Conscience:

Social conservatives, whose core members are Christian conservatives, comprise the largest and most cohesive faction of conservatism. They are, by and large, typical right-wing authoritarian followers. Both neoconservatives [social dominator authoritarians] and social conservatives include countless conservatives without conscience within their ranks [Christianists].

Social conservatives are especially susceptible to irrational beliefs ….

… Social conservatives are deeply offended by atheists who want the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, yet … they recite … that pledge and its words: “liberty and justice for all.” For all but atheists [and moderates, liberals, peace mongers, scientists, climatologists, artists, gays, actors, except Fred Thompson, non-Republicans, non-whites, non-Christians, non-conformers, non-feelers or thinkers, hybrid owners, agnostics, union members, dissenters, suspected terrorists and anyone not like them] ….

They represent 43 percent of registered Republicans.

But there is hope. Based on the total votes cast, 827,462, for the IOWA caucus and New Hampshire primary Huckabee came in 6th with 8 percent of the total votes. What is really important is the voter turnout for the Democrats – 57 percent of the total votes cast. If that can be maintained across the nation, the November election will not be close and Democrats have 10 percentage points over the closest Republican. The social/value issue voters won’t have a chance.

In 2006, John Dean made the following statements about social conservatives in his book Conservatives Without Conscience:

Social conservatives, whose core members are Christian conservatives, comprise the largest and most cohesive faction of conservatism. They are, by and large, typical right-wing authoritarian followers. Both neoconservatives [social dominator authoritarians] and social conservatives include countless conservatives without conscience within their ranks [Christianists].

Social conservatives are especially susceptible to irrational beliefs ….

… Social conservatives are deeply offended by atheists who want the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, yet … they recite … that pledge and its words: “liberty and justice for all.” For all but atheists [and moderates, liberals, peace mongers, scientists, climatologists, artists, gays, actors, except Fred Thompson, non-Republicans, non-whites, non-Christians, non-conformers, non-feelers or thinkers, hybrid owners, agnostics, union members, dissenters, suspected terrorists and anyone not like them] ….

Another more recent example of irrational beliefs, as shown later in the posting, is that more than 75 percent of them have a “favorable view” of Rudy Giuliani in spite of his lack of support for their social issues.

So, is there anything more current that reconfirms John Dean’s assertions? Based on a recent, October 15, 2007, survey by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the answer is, “Yes.”

According to the survey, “many 2008 Republican presidential candidates are vying for the support of an influential segment of the primary electorate – social-issue voters. These voters are Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters, many of whom are conservative Christians, who say social issues such as abortion and gay marriage will be very important in their presidential voting decisions.”

It goes on to report that 43 percent of the Republican voters say they will decide how to vote based on social issues.

The survey also shows that these social-issue voters differ in many ways from the rest of the Republican coalition.

• More religious.
• More conservative.
• Less educated
• Mostly from the ‘working class’ and don’t benefit from Republican tax law changes – more irrationality
• Attend religious services at least once a week
• Consider themselves to be white evangelical protestants
• More are women
• More consider themselves “strong Republicans”

These social-issuses voters also differ significantly from other Republicans on their issues and candidates:

• Stridently antiabortion
• A plurality oppose stem cell research
• Almost unanimously against gay marriage
• Most blindly obedient to GWB
• Favor Giuliani over Romney and McCain

I close with a couple of quotes about these fringe yet powerful Republicans.

In 1994, the same year Gingrich started remaking Congress in his own image, Barry Goldwater said this to John Dean who used it in the preface to Conservatives Without Conscience.

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.

And now for my most frequent quote from John Dean:

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. … And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going away.

Now for what these Christianists want of you – to be just like them and not any of the following: moderate, liberal, peace monger, scientist, climatologist, artist, gay, actor, non-Republican, non-white, non-Christian, non-conformer, non-feeler or thinker, hybrid owner, agnostic, union member, or dissenter.

Unless you are ready to be remade in their image, you had best keep an eye on them, check Right Wing Watch occasionally.

Anyone know what Karl Rove has been up to lately?

In Power and Absolute Power – What Concerns Me Most, I expressed my concerns about political power being concentrated into one party, either Democrats or Republicans, “… what is taking us back to the really good ole’ days is that the Republican conservatives are being controlled by the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who want to replace our democracy with a theocracy.” According to the CIA’s The World Factbook, the only Theocratic Republic currently in existence is Iran. Why would citizens in the U. S. want to emulate this?

In Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice … No, Not This Time, I pointed out how this power is being used to continue the ” ‘massacre’ on our constitution” started by Cheney and Rumsfeld under President Ford and continued with Cheney and Rumsfeld under President Bush. I concluded that article with, “As all this indicates, history is repeating itself. And as it was with President Nixon then, it’s time now for President Bush and the bully duo to go.” In Unitary Presidency, Dysfunctional Congress and Judicial Petitions – Is It Too Late to Stop the Redacting of the Constitution?, I continued the description of this massacre and gradual transition to a new form of government, “How much more of this abuse can our system of government take? Has the damage to our rule of law reached the point of no return? Will the rule of opinion dominate our future?”

A confirmation of this attack is the recent ruling by the U.S. District Court in Detroit that, “the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution”

In Failed Single Party Nations of the Past – Where Are We Going Now?, I summarized a chapter from an old college political science text about what contributed to the creation of Nazi Germany, “This is some of what happened in Germany and Italy before and during WWII. Could it happen here? Maybe, maybe not. Is there a way to judge if it is or isn’t happening? Maybe, maybe not.”

I have now learned that, based on empirical research data generated since WWII, the answer, according to Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarian Specter is, “I’m afraid so.” Professor Altemeyer’s work and the work of many since 1950 and the fall of Nazi Germany, is referenced extensively by John W. Dean in his latest book, CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE. Chapter 2 of Mr. Dean’s book deals with psychological aspects of “obedience to authority” and the “thinking and behavior of authoritarian personalities.”

Most of his information on obedience to authority comes from the work of Stanley Milgram. Milgram’s work started in 1961 and the results were published in 1974 under the title of “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.”

According to John Dean, “this experiment was designed to test … the willingness of those administering electrical shocks to obey the authority figure.” The result of the experiment was that 65 percent of the ‘teachers’ instructed by an authority figure to shock an unseen ‘student’ for incorrect responses were willing to apply up to a 450 volt shock while ignoring their conscience. In reality no one was hurt, but the ‘teacher’ applying the shock could hear the faked screams of the ‘student’ and would still do as they were instructed.

Ten years before Milgram’s work on obedience without a conscience, a study, The Authoritarian Personality, was started at the University of California in Berkeley. Since that study (which has it’s critics) was completed, the understanding of authoritarianism has been extensively updated and validated with empirical data.

The primary contributor to this refinement is Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. According to John Dean, Professor Altemeyer “not only confirmed the flaws in the methodology and findings of The Authoritarian Personality, but he set this field of study on new footings, by clarifying the study of authoritarian followers.” Professor Altemeyer has been researching and publishing on the spectrum of authoritarianism since 1981. He has written three books and numerous articles for various professional journals.

According to John Dean, Profession Altemeyer has identified three types of authoritarians: The Followers, The Leaders and the Double Highs. The professor has developed psychological tests to identify individuals as either part of a “submissive crowd” or as a social dominator. Those who score high on both tests he calls double highs.

The Followers, as characterized by Altemeyer in John Dean’s book:

• are “especially submissive to established authority“
• show “general aggressiveness” toward others when such behavior “is perceived to be sanctioned” by established authorities
• are highly compliant with “social conventions” endorsed by society and established authorities

The Leaders are characterized in Dean’s book as scoring high on Altemeyer’s social dominance orientation (SDO) test in:

• dominance
• economic conservatism
• belief in inequality
• amorality
• meaness

Here is a more complete list of the “key definition traits” for authoritarian Leaders and Followers from John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience:

There is one last trait that is common to most psychologically aggressive authoritarian types that I did not list above. (Keep in mind that authoritarian is a psychological term not a political one.) Until I read John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience I did not understand, as well as I do now, what brought me to doing this blog and creating the posts referenced above. I have always felt more concern for power shifting to the right than when it shifts to the left, and now I know why. Anyone who takes Professor Altemeyer’s psychological authoritarian surveys and scores high as a Follower, Leader, or Double High, usually turns out to also be politically and economically a conservative Republican. This is why Altemeyer refers to one of his surveys the right-wing auhoritarian scale.

I think the authoritarian Followers are of least concern. Take away their enemies and they lose focus. The real problem is with the authoritarian Leaders who keep the fear and manipulation going. So, who are these Leaders that we need to get out of public office before they turn this country upside-down? I will be providing that information in a later postings (Part 1a, Part 1b, Part 2, Part 3). If you are now too worried to wait, I suggest to purchase and read Conservatives Without Conscience.

Can This Authoritarian Future Be Stopped?

In February 2006, the IRS published the results of their review of reported violations of the Revenue Act of 1954 by organizations, including churches, whose tax exempt status prohibits their participation in or intervening in “(including the publicizing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office.” The 1954 act was amended in 1987 to clarify that this prohibition applies to activities “in opposition to,” as well as in favor of, any candidate for public office.

The IRS’s executive summary put it this way:

Although charities are precluded from intervening in political campaigns, the IRS has seen growth in the number and variety of allegations of such behavior by section 501(c)(3) organizations during election cycles. This increase in allegations, coupled with the dramatic increases in money spent during political campaigns, has raised concerns about whether prohibited funding and activity are emerging in section 501(c)(3) organizations.

If left unaddressed, the potential for charities, including churches, being used as arms of political campaigns and parties will erode the public’s confidence in these institutions.

In this study, the IRS examined 132 organizations (less than half of these were churches). In preparation for reviewing these organizations, 22 were dropped. Of the remaining 110 cases, 82 reviews have been “determined:”

• For three cases, the IRS proposed revocation of tax exempt status
• For 55 cases, prohibited campaign activity has occurred, however, revocation was not proposed. Each case also included a warning “that the organization risks possible revocation of tax-exempt status should it become involved in political activities in the future,” see details below.
• For 5 cases, other non-political violations were found.
• For 18 cases, no violation of the prohibition on political campaigns was found.

The violations found for the 55 cases above include:

• Charities, including churches, distributing diverse printed materials that encouraged their members to vote for a preferred candidate (24 alleged; 9 determined),
• Religious leaders using the pulpit to endorse or oppose a particular candidate (19 alleged; 12 determined),
• Charities, including churches, criticizing or supporting a candidate on their website or through links to another website (15 alleged; 7 determined),
• Charities, including churches, disseminating improper voter guides or candidate ratings (14 alleged; 4 determined),
• Charities, including churches, placing signs on their property that show they support a particular candidate (12 alleged; 9 determined),
• Charities, including churches, giving improperly preferential treatment to certain candidates by permitting them to speak at functions (11 alleged; 9 determined), and
• Charities, including churches, making cash contributions to a candidate’s political campaign (7 alleged; 5 determined).

IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, summarized the situation this way, “While the vast majority of charities, including churches, did not engage in politicking, our examinations substantiated a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 electoral cycle.”

In conclusion, the IRS determinations confirm an undue, illegal and growing influence of Christianists on our political process.

On March 17, 2006, “The Decider” (President Bush II) signed a $70,000,000,000 (billion) tax cut passed by “The Follower” (Congress), which is trying to find another $23 billion for us – well some of us anyway.

The table below, which is based on a recent Tax Policy Center (TPC) review of the new tax cuts, shows how this tax cut is distributed by “income class.”

The green shaded area represents the 14 percent of the tax payers who earn over $100,000 a year and get 87 percent of this cut. In real numbers this means 20,197,000 “tax units” will get about $61 billion. This works out to a little over $3,000 per tax unit.

As represented by the blue shaded area, the remaining $9 billion from this tax cut goes to 125,641,000 less rich “tax units.” That works out to about $72 per tax unit, about enough to fill an average car’s gas tank 1.5 times.

Cash Income Class (1,000 of 2005 $s)	Share of Tot Tax Change (%)	Avg Tax Reduction ($)	Tax Units (1,000)	Tax Units (%)
Less than 10	0.0	0	18,886	12.9
10-20	0.1	3	25,413	17.4
20-30	0.3	10	20,374	13.9
30-40	0.4	17	15,429	10.4
40-50	0.9	47	11,953	8.2
50-75	3.6	112	21,121	14.4
75-100	7.6	406	12,455	8.5
100-200	32.0	1,395	15,196	10.4
200-500	27.2	4,527	3,988	2.7
500-1000	5.7	5,656	668	0.5
>1000	22.3	42,766	345	0.2
All	100	453	146,417	100

Now here is a question on the tax cuts. Since, the Christianists are, by definition, a power player in the political process, to what extent were they affected by this tax cut? Since they support the GOP, they should benefit by their support. Right?

The answer can be found in a 1996 study from Pew Research on religion and politics. This study was a follow-up to another survey from 1987, and potentially, the 1996 study will be updated in the near future.

First of all, let me repeat Andrew Sullivan’s description of a Christianist, “I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”

Now here are some of the general findings of the 1996 survey that relate to this Christianist description:

• Grown their affiliation with the Republican Party from 35 to 42 percent
• Grown their representation among voters from 19 to 24 percent
• Greater opposition to:
  • abortion,
  • gay marriage,
  • gun control,
  • sending troops go Bosnia, [Remember, this was in 1996]
  • disseminating birth control information to teenagers, and
  • women in the work force

The survey also reported these additional facts on mixing religion and politics for Christianists or the broader category of white evangelical Protestants:

• Twenty percent of white evangelical Protestants reported hearing partisan politics from the pulpit as compared to 12 percent for both mainline Protestants and Catholics.
• Eighteen percent of white evangelical Protestants reported campaign information was made available in their churches compared to 5 percent for mainline Protestants or Catholics.
• White evangelical Protestants think it is okay for churches to be involved in politics by a three to one margin.
• Fifty-eight percent reported being displeased with the media (Note: Fox News went live in 1996 when these survey results were published.).
• The Christian Coalition gets a favorable, 64 percent, rating from white evangelical Protestants.
• White evangelical Protestants surpassed their political opposite, Progressive Catholics, in terms of consistency across a broad range of political issues.
• White evangelical Protestants favor the GOP by 56 percent over the Democrats as the party most concerned about protecting religious values.

Now getting back to the tax cut. Here are some of the raw data from the 1996 survey showing Protestant education and income, which we can relate to the tax cut study above:

Education	White Mainline Protestant	White Evangelical Protestant
College Grad	27	16
Some College	22	24
HS Grad	41	47
< HS Grad	10	14

 

Family Income	White Mainline Protestant	White Evangelical Protestant
$0 – $20,000	19	22
$20,000 – $29,999	18	18
$30,000 – $49,999	27	28
$50,000 – $74,999	13	12
$75,000 +	12	8

Note from Pew Research: Some columns do not add to 100% because not all categories are shown.

From these tables, you can see that white evangelical Protestants average below mainline Protestants on the high end of income and education. They also surpass mainline Protestants on the low end of both scales. In other words, white evangelical Protestants are more likely to get less of the tax cut. (And why do they support the GOP?)

This tax benefit is highlighted in the table below where the tax reduction distribution from the TPC is appended to the raw income data from the 1996 Pew Research survey. Since the TPC table has 11 income groups and Pew Research and only 5 groups, the TPC tax reductions had to be averaged to come up with the numbers in the table below. For example, TPC’s 30 to 40 and 40 to 50 numbers (17 and 47) average to 32 in the table below for the 30,000 to 49,999 range.

Family Income	White Mainline Protestant	White Evangelical Protestant	Average Tax Reduction
$0 – $20,000	19	22	$2
$20,000 – $29,999	18	18	$10
$30,000 – $49,999	27	28	$32
$50,000 – $74,999	13	12	$112
$75,000 +	12	8	$10,950

In conclusion, the white evangelical Protestants get little return from the party they support. Money may not be what they are looking for, but mixing religion and politics isn’t the answer either.

One other comment. In my previous article, I made references to the dependent masses, not the majority of citizens in a country, but the group that is necessary to bring about and maintain a single party state. Are the white evangelical Protestants the masses for some future single party state?

In my research for this article, I also came across another interesting chart. It is from a December 2002 survey and shows that 60 percent of the U.S. population feels that religion is very important to them. It also shows that the US is a considerable exception to the rule that says, the poorer the nation – the more important religion is.

Click on image for the original report.

Islamists and “Christianists” are a minority in their respective religions and use their religion to promote a political ideology.

In an Andrew Sullivan article, Mr Sullivan suggests, “we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist.” Mr. Sullivan goes on to say,

Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That’s what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn’t. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It’s time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

In Mr. Sullivan’s blog, he adds the following clarification (bold added for emphasis):

Some readers have objected to my attempt to coin a new word to describe those who would deploy the teachings of Jesus as a political ideology as “Christianists.” They don’t like the analogy to Islamists, and think it imputes to politicized Christians an endorsement of terror or violence. The latter is not in any way my intent. In the war on terror, many have distinguished between Muslims and Islamists. The distinction made is between those who sincerely hold to an ancient faith, and those who are deploying that faith as a political weapon, who see no distinction between state and mosque, and who aggressively foist their religious doctrines onto civil law. And this is a critical distinction. It helps us to criticize regimes like the Taliban or Iran’s, while not tarring all Muslims with that label.

“My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus Christ