Customer Reviews

Holy Terror: The Fundamentalist War on America's Freedoms in Religion, Politics and Our Private Lives

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I first read this book twenty years ago and have watched the progress of Holy Terror. Now, in a time time when so many Americans are feeling fearful and intimidated, is the time to read this book again. This book will help Americans understand that the source of their fears is not terrorism from a remote country. This terrorism began in the American heartland.

This book is an exellent treatise on the fundamentalist right, their extreme agenda and views, and the unethical tactics used in the 1980 campaign. They show how the "Born Again Christian" fad of the late 70's and 80's can and does destroy lives, as well as their twisting rhetoric used in their attacks on the "evil forces of the left", including such dangerous ideas as Evolution, welfare, free speech, and equal rights. It does have a few flaws, the main one being the lack of explanation of "Indirect Propaganda", but largely Siegalman and Conway paint an exellent and highly researched portrait of the Fundamentalist movement. This book is a gold mine for anyone looking for dirt on this so-called grassroots effort (with gobs of liquid cash and election tactics) and their role in a possible future. Lucas Harris (Somsoc611@aol.com

The authors examine many of the methods employed to influence individuals and groups by using appeals to the emotions and psychological vulnerabilities that everyone has to some degree. If all one wants is to become a wiser consumer, this book will open your eyes. If one wants to become a more effective citizen this book will help you understand the subtle forces and techniques used by the media, special interest groups and politicians to shape society's perception of events and issues. It is one of the best books available on the subject. The examples given are taken from events that occurred in the second half on the 20th century and are easy to verify with respect to their accuracy. I read it in one sitting.

I laugh every time some lefty on TV warns America that "The Religious Right is trying to take over our country! The evil theocracy is right around the corner!" (Or words to that effect.)

Why do I laugh? Because I read this book back in the early 80s when it was first printed. All the overheated rhetoric that we still hear echoing today is the same half-baked nonsense that these authors delivered 30 years ago. And where is that imminent religious takeover of America? Nowhere. And it's never coming, because our society has become too secularized for it to be possible. But it's certainly good bait for raising funds for Democrat candidates.

I must admit I never finished this book. I was taking detailed notes as I read, marking down inconsistencies, lies, poor research, and exaggerations. After I had several pages of notes I decided I'd better not finish the book or I'd die of terminal writer's cramp. The one laugh that still sticks in my mind relates to the story of a young fundamentalist who quoted the scary "Bible verse" that goes: "To live as Christ, to die as Cain." Unfortunately, the authors (who clearly have never cracked a Bible open in their lives), mis-heard Philippians 1:21, where (in the King James Version), the Apostle Paul says, "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

This book is nonsensical, and those who still repeat similar mantras today re equally nonsensical.

The authors are well known for their criticisms of cults and in this text have applied their ideas of 'snapping' and 'information disease' to the subject of US Christian Fundamentalism. The topic of course has been ably treated by scholars such as Marsden, Noll, Hunter & Marty. What distinguishes Conway & Siegelman is their claim that fundamentalists employ 'emotional control' to gain and maintain converts. In their thesis the authors drive a wedge between the correct Biblical basis for the expression 'born again' and their own eccentric use of the term. They argue that fundamentalist groups dissuade their converts from analytical thought and encourage the suppression of emotions. Two instances they cite are from the booklets produced by para-church groups The Navigators and Campus Crusade For Christ. In both cases, if one checks the booklets in context, one will readily see that the conclusions drawn by Conway & Siegelman are specious. That Fundamentalism is often reactionary to society is a well-established notion amongst scholars. That Fundamentalists often blend a conservative theology with right-wing politics is also well known. Conway & Siegelman have endeavoured to expose the right-wing political agenda of fundamentalists. They are welcome to engage in such criticism. However they fail to note that not all theologically conservative Christians adhere to these extremes. The social justice and human rights writings of John Warwick Montgomery, Ronald Sider and Jim Wallis ought to lay to rest the naive assumption that right-wing political views are necessarily Biblical or Christian. The difficulty with Conway & Siegelman's thesis is that they approach the subject with reductionist presuppositions built on their novel theories about human communication systems and mind control. They also lack empathy for genuine religious experiences and are prone to quoting texts out of context.Their previous work on cults has been subjected to some probiong criticism by sociologists and scholars on new religious movements. It is a pity that such a potent subject as Christian fundamentalism has been so poorly treated by these authors. There are far better treatments of this subject. Conway & Siegelman's thesis is not a sound one.

While the authors tell many scary stories about fundamentalists, they consistently forget that even fundamentalists have the right to "peaceably petition" for changes they want. They can't seem to differentiate between extra-legal and unlawful fundamentalist activities, military men whose first loyalty is to their version of Christianity rather than the Constitution, and political movements that are perfectly legal and above-board.
It's a useful source, but very one-sided. And I don't like fundamentalists, either.