An interesting interview   with an author who compares the American Christian Right
with early Fascists from the last century.

However, I don't necessarily buy that Joe's brand of religion (Roman
Catholicism, where I too have my roots) is 'fundamentally' different
in many of its official practices from the 'fundamentalist'
Christians. Especially given the directions its leaders are taking
it in the 21st century.

I give as exemplary the following:

1) The Church of Rome continues to attempt to codify into law by
   use of political influence, the moral decision about what
   a woman can do with her own body.
2) Fr. Peter Phan, who has made the mistake of suggesting that
   salvation might be achieved other than through Catholic/Christian
   spiritualism, and put same in a book, is just the latest of any
   number of theologians for forwarding academic ideas which threaten
   the power of the magisterium.
3) The Church's subversion of civil authority in the cases of sex
   abuse for centuries--- and their continued efforts to
   conceal, thwart, subterfuge, around the issue (c.f., the Orange
   County California's bishop's attempt to get sealed a deposition
   in which he admitted that he himself has been accused of such
   transgressions, or Santa Rosa Bishop (CA) Walsh's abetting the
   escape of pervert priest Xavier Ochoa to Mexico by failing to
   follow mandatory reporting laws just last year.
4) The latest pronouncements by Pope Benedict have set
   ecumenism back 50 years.
5) The Church has actively opposed any sort of recognition of
   the relationship same-sex couples.
6) As an employer, the Church of Rome has a rather dismal track
   record as regard labor issues, from schools to hospitals to
   chanceries. In some cases they even defy civil law on religious
   grounds, such as refusing to cover oral contraceptives in their
   health plans where required to do so by law, union-busting
   activities, eclipsing of academic freedom principles, etc.

Yes, the Church of Rome has a membership around the edges who
operate on the "left" and pursue a "liberal" agenda. However its
officialdom probably does as much as anyone to promote the election
of 'God Bless America' conservatives on issue (1) above, thus throwing
out social justice and peace issues with the political bath-water.

On the other hand, there truly ARE liberal and open-minded religions
out there, who end-to-end, make it a point of being so. The poster-
child is probably the United Church of Christ. Along side them are
Methodists, most of Unitarian Universalism, and what is now mainstream
Anglicanism. But they are very much in the minority; certainly
(with the exception of the Anglicans) not considered 'main line.'

I'll take the position that any 'Church' which claims to have a
special lease on 'salvation' over and above all (or even any) others
HAS out-lived its usefulness in a world where you can get from
Occident to Orient in a matter of hours. Any Church which places
organizational self-preservation above the good of humankind in
general (or worse yet, equates its own self-preservation with the
good of humankind at large) is not just useless--- it may be
out-and-out dangerous to the 'salvation' of the world.

Unfortunately it seems to me that most Christians and Muslims find themselves in the midst of precisely that sort of 'evangelical'
mind-set, both personally and organizationally. Most make no
apologies for it at all. Some, such as 'progressive' Roman Catholics
attempt either to deny that such is the true nature of the
organization, or try to swim upstream from within. The problem is
that their tithes go right into such organization's mainstreams,
controlled by those who are not nearly so enlightened.

As a nominal 'Christian' it makes me cringe when I, on an almost
daily basis, drive past a billboard that proclaims 'In Christ Alone,
Hope!' Such a narrow view has, indeed, outlived its usefulness.