Scan barcode
andreazak's review against another edition
5.0
frigging awesome. a great overview of Christian Nationalism as it pertains to education, health, and government.
dashadashahi's review against another edition
4.0
This is an interesting book and despite being published 15 years ago it is still relevant today, maybe even more so after Donald Trump's tumultuous presidency. Goldberg details the minority of right-wing Christian nationalists and their continued attempts at breaking-down America's fundamental institutions as evidenced by Bush's presidency and his funding of right-wing Christian nationalists groups and programs and the appointment of individuals into the courts who share Christian nationalists values. In her conclusion Goldberg offers some solutions to what she considers a rising problem and although I agree with several of her points and thought the book was eye-opening the conclusion also reveals a weakness of the book. That is, Goldberg claims she is "scared" by the rise of Christian nationalists and their assault on the middle and left wing's rights and freedoms. I feel that her fear may seep into some of her writing and give it a biased perspective. Nonetheless, an excellent read.
lauren_endnotes's review against another edition
While I agreed with every single thing that this book said, I didn't like the way it was written.
walkerct's review against another edition
4.0
Yeah, probably shouldn't have read this right after finishing the first season of The Handmaid's Tale...
I would rate this maybe just a shade under 4 stars. Altogether it's a compellingly written, often alarming, and informative peek into the world of Christian nationalism and Christian Reconstructionism in the United States. To be clear, it isn't an evaluation of US Christianity in general, nor is it even an evaluation of evangelical Christianity in the country. Rather, it focuses on a minority of conservative Christians who advocate for varying levels of theocratic influence over, and sometimes direct control of, local and federal government. It's also not a neutral treatment of the topic. Goldberg clearly states that she is deeply disturbed by this movement, and advocates for active measures to be taken to curb its influence.
The book, which was published in 2006, gives a brief history of the movement, but largely covers its political ascendance in the 70s-80s with special focus on its actions around the time of George W. Bush's reelection. Major topics covered include the move to prevent gay marriage laws, the attempt to undermine evolutionary theory in public schools, Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the fight against abortion rights and to push abstinence-only sex education, and the parallel strategies of either cultivating and appointing Christian nationalist jurists or of passing legislation in an attempt to strip the judiciary of the power to oversee cases involving religious subject matter.
The most interesting and unsettling aspect of the book for me is that, although people with extreme Christian nationalist or Reconstructionist beliefs make up a tiny percentage of Christians in the United States, their power to influence political and cultural opinion in the country is extremely strong. A relatively small number of people, like David Barton, James Dobson, Michael Farris, James D. Kennedy, Roy Moore, Marvin Olaskey, Rod Parsley, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson wield a vast amount of influence. During the George W. Bush administration their power was greatly magnified, with many of them directing the distribution of taxpayer dollars to their or similar organizations. Additionally, many of their associates were appointed to government positions where they were able to directly undermine the separation of church and state protections present in the Constitution. Reading this ten years later, it's a wonder that we made it through that time with any secular liberties at all. It would be interesting to hear from Goldberg about how she thinks things stand now. After eight years of Barack Obama and six months of Donald Trump progress seems to have been uneven on both sides of the fight.
Finally, though I feel that Goldberg was largely even-handed with her account, there are a number of times where her self-confessed cosmopolitanism shows itself in some less than constructive ways. For example, her description of exurban spaces is a tad on the dramatic side: "Yet the brutal, impersonal utilitarianism of the strip mall and office park architecture---its perversely ascetic refusal to make a single concession to aesthetics---recalls the Stalinist monstrosities imposed on Communist countries. The banality is aggressive and disorienting." I also questioned some of her suggestions for allaying the situation politically. For instance, she suggests abolishing the Electoral College (which, please, yes) but she goes on to suggest breaking up some of the larger states into several parts (for instance, making New York City its own state) as a means of creating more liberal Senate seats. That strategy doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I feel it would polarize our government even more strongly.
In summary, though it could have dug into some of its subject matter more deeply, I enjoyed this book. Though it's somewhat dated now, it still provides a lot of useful insights into extremist Christian society.
I would rate this maybe just a shade under 4 stars. Altogether it's a compellingly written, often alarming, and informative peek into the world of Christian nationalism and Christian Reconstructionism in the United States. To be clear, it isn't an evaluation of US Christianity in general, nor is it even an evaluation of evangelical Christianity in the country. Rather, it focuses on a minority of conservative Christians who advocate for varying levels of theocratic influence over, and sometimes direct control of, local and federal government. It's also not a neutral treatment of the topic. Goldberg clearly states that she is deeply disturbed by this movement, and advocates for active measures to be taken to curb its influence.
The book, which was published in 2006, gives a brief history of the movement, but largely covers its political ascendance in the 70s-80s with special focus on its actions around the time of George W. Bush's reelection. Major topics covered include the move to prevent gay marriage laws, the attempt to undermine evolutionary theory in public schools, Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the fight against abortion rights and to push abstinence-only sex education, and the parallel strategies of either cultivating and appointing Christian nationalist jurists or of passing legislation in an attempt to strip the judiciary of the power to oversee cases involving religious subject matter.
The most interesting and unsettling aspect of the book for me is that, although people with extreme Christian nationalist or Reconstructionist beliefs make up a tiny percentage of Christians in the United States, their power to influence political and cultural opinion in the country is extremely strong. A relatively small number of people, like David Barton, James Dobson, Michael Farris, James D. Kennedy, Roy Moore, Marvin Olaskey, Rod Parsley, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson wield a vast amount of influence. During the George W. Bush administration their power was greatly magnified, with many of them directing the distribution of taxpayer dollars to their or similar organizations. Additionally, many of their associates were appointed to government positions where they were able to directly undermine the separation of church and state protections present in the Constitution. Reading this ten years later, it's a wonder that we made it through that time with any secular liberties at all. It would be interesting to hear from Goldberg about how she thinks things stand now. After eight years of Barack Obama and six months of Donald Trump progress seems to have been uneven on both sides of the fight.
Finally, though I feel that Goldberg was largely even-handed with her account, there are a number of times where her self-confessed cosmopolitanism shows itself in some less than constructive ways. For example, her description of exurban spaces is a tad on the dramatic side: "Yet the brutal, impersonal utilitarianism of the strip mall and office park architecture---its perversely ascetic refusal to make a single concession to aesthetics---recalls the Stalinist monstrosities imposed on Communist countries. The banality is aggressive and disorienting." I also questioned some of her suggestions for allaying the situation politically. For instance, she suggests abolishing the Electoral College (which, please, yes) but she goes on to suggest breaking up some of the larger states into several parts (for instance, making New York City its own state) as a means of creating more liberal Senate seats. That strategy doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I feel it would polarize our government even more strongly.
In summary, though it could have dug into some of its subject matter more deeply, I enjoyed this book. Though it's somewhat dated now, it still provides a lot of useful insights into extremist Christian society.
blackoxford's review against another edition
4.0
The Apocalypse Is Nigh... No Really, It Is
Sometime in 2009, I heard a radio broadcast from the US which claimed that the culture wars which had been bubbling up since the 1970’s were finally at a end. The commentator, whose name I have mercifully forgotten, opined that the recent financial crash had brought Americans back to their senses. The real political issues, he said, are and always have been economic. Only half listening, I did feel a sense of relief that perhaps indeed American politics were becoming, if not more rational, at least more comprehensible.
How arrogantly ignorant was that commentator; and how utterly naive was I. Perhaps it was because a liberal, intelligent, engaging black man was in the White House. Perhaps it was because the fundamental problems of financial capitalism could finally be observed fully. Perhaps it was because the consummate stupidity of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan had yet to be fully revealed. But whatever the reasons, it was simply not possible to be any more wrong about what had happened, and what would continue to happen to American political sentiment.
While the big news stories were about the usual raft of scandals in the Catholic Church, lies about military progress, and the search for someone to blame for recent economic misery, the real news lay largely unreported and even unnoticed. A coup had already taken place within American government, not in the palaces of the president or the governors (well, maybe a few of these), but in the school boards, county executives, local sheriffs and judges, and most importantly in the activists and delegates of the Republican Party.
Somewhere around 40% of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, that is they believe in things like Creationism, the Second Coming, the eternal damnation of the unbaptised, and the sinfulness of many sexual practices. Many of these folk also regard the ills of society, from criminality to mental illness to bad government to be the result of the failure of Americans generally to respect and live up to what they perceive as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And they desire to bring the country back to God through a re-Christianised law of the land.
But it is a mistake to attribute the political fervour of Christian evangelicals to faith, just as it is a mistake to attribute the equal fervour of Muslim activists to faith. In the first instance, most enthusiastic religious followers have little idea of the content much less meaning of the doctrines on which their political interpretations are grounded. As in all of history, they rely on theological leaders - local pastors, media preachers, and activist acquaintances - to inform them of correct opinion. As the leadership changes, so orthodox opinion also changes, sometimes even the beliefs themselves (Mormon racism is but one example). Credal attestations are but passwords to community.
The solidity of religious opinion in America depends overwhelmingly on one thing: community. Even before the country’s foundation, the church - initially the Congregational non-conformism of New England, then the Methodist and Baptist preachers of the expanding frontier - provided the principal social glue. Subsequently, the political structure of the country - states, counties, and municipalities that are independent of each other as well as of the national government relied almost exclusively on the churches to maintain whatever unity they had created across political boundaries.
This has always been the case. The only recognised relationship, for example between the government of a state and that of the federal government or that of a county or municipality is through the law. The State of Florida recently lost an important suit against the state of Georgia about farmers in the latter killing off oyster beds in the Gulf. There was no other way to mediate the dispute. The small community of Cedar Key, Florida (population 724 in 2018, where I once had a summer cottage), on the other hand, has ten active church congregations. Each of these is part of a regional or national ecclesiastical organisation. Even the independent Pentecostal congregations (of which there are three), have long-standing direct ties with sImilar groups around the country, organising exchanges, youth camps, and revivals.
It is the church which, whether recognised or not, has provided the social matrix of America as it has grown. In the 1960’s and 70’s it appeared as if this matrix was in political as well as religious decline. Liberal America, largely urban, largely educated, had devised a different form of communal organisation: the sit-in, the protest march, the mass rally. Churchmen like Martin Luther King and the Catholic Berrigan brothers were involved in these sorts of events, but as representatives of the church not in its name. When political goals were achieved - wars ended, racial prejudice outted, equality laws passed, and perceived wrongs made right - the organisations behind these events either evaporated (who remembers the SDS?) or just lost widespread support as representative of American society (the NAACP?).
Meanwhile the churches embarked on a massive guerrilla war, largely below the radar of the Liberal establishment. They quietly (well not entirely, the television preachers are notably boisterous) encouraged increasing participation by their members in local politics. By the turn of the 21st century, a generation or so after the great Liberal triumphs, the evangelicals had taken over the Republican Party at every level. They had played the long game, and they won it. Unlike their Liberal rivals, they’re not going to disappear with their victories. They want more. And they have the traditionally most powerful tool of social cohesion and change in America to get what they want: the church.
History is on the side of the church-going Right-wing in America. The Left has nothing like the grassroots network of the Christian Church. Liberal politicians continue to express hope that the electorate will wake up to the imbecility of Conservative politicians and their fundamentalist beliefs, that somehow Trump’s mendacity and obvious self-serving activities will undermine their faith. This hope is misdirected. The power of evangelical Christianity comes not from belief or faith but from its ability to create community. This has always been its primary role in America.
Christianity has recovered from its mid-century setbacks with remarkable speed. As Goldberg points out: “This is Christianity as a total ideology.” Like all ideologies, this one appears vulnerable, incoherent, and often silly from the outside. But such perception misses the point. Christian ideologues, like every other sort, want friendship, emotional support, confirmation of their personal value, and a ‘place’ in society. They are needy, but now they are also powerful. They get their needs met not by abstract beliefs but by the very real people around them... even, most bizarrely, by Donald Trump. Goldberg doesn’t entirely get this despite her otherwise excellent rapportage. This gives her an inordinate hope for the future.
I, on the other hand, am just listening attentively for the first trumpet to sound. Merry Christmas.
Postscript 18/03/22: https://apple.news/AFSkR103tTFyiI89CKmAYrQ
Sometime in 2009, I heard a radio broadcast from the US which claimed that the culture wars which had been bubbling up since the 1970’s were finally at a end. The commentator, whose name I have mercifully forgotten, opined that the recent financial crash had brought Americans back to their senses. The real political issues, he said, are and always have been economic. Only half listening, I did feel a sense of relief that perhaps indeed American politics were becoming, if not more rational, at least more comprehensible.
How arrogantly ignorant was that commentator; and how utterly naive was I. Perhaps it was because a liberal, intelligent, engaging black man was in the White House. Perhaps it was because the fundamental problems of financial capitalism could finally be observed fully. Perhaps it was because the consummate stupidity of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan had yet to be fully revealed. But whatever the reasons, it was simply not possible to be any more wrong about what had happened, and what would continue to happen to American political sentiment.
While the big news stories were about the usual raft of scandals in the Catholic Church, lies about military progress, and the search for someone to blame for recent economic misery, the real news lay largely unreported and even unnoticed. A coup had already taken place within American government, not in the palaces of the president or the governors (well, maybe a few of these), but in the school boards, county executives, local sheriffs and judges, and most importantly in the activists and delegates of the Republican Party.
Somewhere around 40% of Americans identify as evangelical Christians, that is they believe in things like Creationism, the Second Coming, the eternal damnation of the unbaptised, and the sinfulness of many sexual practices. Many of these folk also regard the ills of society, from criminality to mental illness to bad government to be the result of the failure of Americans generally to respect and live up to what they perceive as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And they desire to bring the country back to God through a re-Christianised law of the land.
But it is a mistake to attribute the political fervour of Christian evangelicals to faith, just as it is a mistake to attribute the equal fervour of Muslim activists to faith. In the first instance, most enthusiastic religious followers have little idea of the content much less meaning of the doctrines on which their political interpretations are grounded. As in all of history, they rely on theological leaders - local pastors, media preachers, and activist acquaintances - to inform them of correct opinion. As the leadership changes, so orthodox opinion also changes, sometimes even the beliefs themselves (Mormon racism is but one example). Credal attestations are but passwords to community.
The solidity of religious opinion in America depends overwhelmingly on one thing: community. Even before the country’s foundation, the church - initially the Congregational non-conformism of New England, then the Methodist and Baptist preachers of the expanding frontier - provided the principal social glue. Subsequently, the political structure of the country - states, counties, and municipalities that are independent of each other as well as of the national government relied almost exclusively on the churches to maintain whatever unity they had created across political boundaries.
This has always been the case. The only recognised relationship, for example between the government of a state and that of the federal government or that of a county or municipality is through the law. The State of Florida recently lost an important suit against the state of Georgia about farmers in the latter killing off oyster beds in the Gulf. There was no other way to mediate the dispute. The small community of Cedar Key, Florida (population 724 in 2018, where I once had a summer cottage), on the other hand, has ten active church congregations. Each of these is part of a regional or national ecclesiastical organisation. Even the independent Pentecostal congregations (of which there are three), have long-standing direct ties with sImilar groups around the country, organising exchanges, youth camps, and revivals.
It is the church which, whether recognised or not, has provided the social matrix of America as it has grown. In the 1960’s and 70’s it appeared as if this matrix was in political as well as religious decline. Liberal America, largely urban, largely educated, had devised a different form of communal organisation: the sit-in, the protest march, the mass rally. Churchmen like Martin Luther King and the Catholic Berrigan brothers were involved in these sorts of events, but as representatives of the church not in its name. When political goals were achieved - wars ended, racial prejudice outted, equality laws passed, and perceived wrongs made right - the organisations behind these events either evaporated (who remembers the SDS?) or just lost widespread support as representative of American society (the NAACP?).
Meanwhile the churches embarked on a massive guerrilla war, largely below the radar of the Liberal establishment. They quietly (well not entirely, the television preachers are notably boisterous) encouraged increasing participation by their members in local politics. By the turn of the 21st century, a generation or so after the great Liberal triumphs, the evangelicals had taken over the Republican Party at every level. They had played the long game, and they won it. Unlike their Liberal rivals, they’re not going to disappear with their victories. They want more. And they have the traditionally most powerful tool of social cohesion and change in America to get what they want: the church.
History is on the side of the church-going Right-wing in America. The Left has nothing like the grassroots network of the Christian Church. Liberal politicians continue to express hope that the electorate will wake up to the imbecility of Conservative politicians and their fundamentalist beliefs, that somehow Trump’s mendacity and obvious self-serving activities will undermine their faith. This hope is misdirected. The power of evangelical Christianity comes not from belief or faith but from its ability to create community. This has always been its primary role in America.
Christianity has recovered from its mid-century setbacks with remarkable speed. As Goldberg points out: “This is Christianity as a total ideology.” Like all ideologies, this one appears vulnerable, incoherent, and often silly from the outside. But such perception misses the point. Christian ideologues, like every other sort, want friendship, emotional support, confirmation of their personal value, and a ‘place’ in society. They are needy, but now they are also powerful. They get their needs met not by abstract beliefs but by the very real people around them... even, most bizarrely, by Donald Trump. Goldberg doesn’t entirely get this despite her otherwise excellent rapportage. This gives her an inordinate hope for the future.
I, on the other hand, am just listening attentively for the first trumpet to sound. Merry Christmas.
Postscript 18/03/22: https://apple.news/AFSkR103tTFyiI89CKmAYrQ
tora76's review against another edition
4.0
While I enjoyed the book, it definitely suffered from being dated, as a lot has changed in the ten years since it was published. With the subtitle "The Rise of Christian Nationalism", I had been hoping for a more historical approach when it turned out to be more a summary of current events at the time of writing.
llynn66's review against another edition
3.0
I learned quite a bit about a group of people who call themselves Christian Reconstructionists, who want to build that bridge to the 10th century. Scary stuff. If you are female, gay, want to control the number of children you have or just want to live in the good ol' state separated from church, formally know as the U.S. -- maybe you should read about what these fanatics have planned for the rest of us.
jgn's review
4.0
This is a brief history of the proponents of Christian "dominionism" -- the wing of the evangelical community that would seek to enforce a specific understanding of Scripture on everyday behavior in the United States, via changes in institutions: healthcare, education, and the judiciary. (The most extreme version of this story is to label the movement as a sort of pre-Fascism, and Goldberg almost goes there.) If you don't know who RJ Rushdoony was (and you should) this book is for you. The book ably demonstrates the uneven basis for claims about the Constitution (and other matters) made by people like David Barton, Howard Phillips, and others. Along the way there are little revelations (so to speak) such as the fact that Tim LaHaye was a trainer for the John Birch Society (p. 161), and that Phillips was raised Jewish (pp. 165-166). There are a lot of twisted paths among the protagonists.
Goldberg is a reporter, not an historian, but there is some interesting analysis. I thought the most provocative was her answer to the question: When Federal monies are given to faith-based programs, why is there no evaluation of effectiveness? (pp. 109-127) Reason: Because this community has rejected many empirical observations from science (for example, that spiritual counseling for drug abuse is not as effective as other means), thus "evidence" simply doesn't have much value (esp. p. 127). The key quote is provided by Gerard Bradley, a law professor, who suggests that there should be a different kind of measurement for these programs -- that people "who welcome Jesus into their hearts" simply outweighs what empiricism can measure. I am tempted to expand this to explain a lot of extreme conservative behavior: Even though the facts tell us that expelling illegal immigrants will have unintended consequences for the economy, it doesn't matter, because ejecting even one "bad hombre" has transcendental value in and of itself.
A detriment of the book is Goldberg's contempt for people who live in the suburbs. She writes of the locales of Christian megachurches:
You see, their views are not only unacceptable, but they are tacky as well. Later on, it seems to almost pain Goldberg to note that a particular counselor "really was helping many of the suffering people who came to her" in a "diverse crowd" (p. 125). The book would be better if it dropped the attitude. There's plenty here to tell without mocking.
Goldberg is a reporter, not an historian, but there is some interesting analysis. I thought the most provocative was her answer to the question: When Federal monies are given to faith-based programs, why is there no evaluation of effectiveness? (pp. 109-127) Reason: Because this community has rejected many empirical observations from science (for example, that spiritual counseling for drug abuse is not as effective as other means), thus "evidence" simply doesn't have much value (esp. p. 127). The key quote is provided by Gerard Bradley, a law professor, who suggests that there should be a different kind of measurement for these programs -- that people "who welcome Jesus into their hearts" simply outweighs what empiricism can measure. I am tempted to expand this to explain a lot of extreme conservative behavior: Even though the facts tell us that expelling illegal immigrants will have unintended consequences for the economy, it doesn't matter, because ejecting even one "bad hombre" has transcendental value in and of itself.
A detriment of the book is Goldberg's contempt for people who live in the suburbs. She writes of the locales of Christian megachurches:
These church are usually located on the sprawling edges of cities, in new exurban developments that almost totally lack for public space -- squares, parks, promenades, or even, is some places, sidewalks [GASP!]. With their profusion of primary-colored logos, the exurbs are the purest of ecosystems for consumer capitalism. Yet the brutal, impersonal utilitarianism of the strip mall and office park architecture -- its perversely ascetic refusal to make a single concession to aesthetics -- recalls the Stalinist monstrosities imposed on Communist countries. The banality is aggressive and disorienting. (p. 58).
You see, their views are not only unacceptable, but they are tacky as well. Later on, it seems to almost pain Goldberg to note that a particular counselor "really was helping many of the suffering people who came to her" in a "diverse crowd" (p. 125). The book would be better if it dropped the attitude. There's plenty here to tell without mocking.
More...