Using her own essays based on her own first-hand experience and research, Ms. Diamond documents the goals of the Religious Right and its methods of attaining them. There is an authenticity in her writing, no doubt the result of her daring to enter the arena with her research subjects. Ms. Diamond points out that those of a progressive bent -- not necessarily liberals, democrats, or anti-religionists -- who wish to defeat the Right's attempts to usurp church-state separation must have an understanding of the Right, its motives, fears and objectives.

Diamond treats her subject with respect, although she is not above making the occasional subjective comment (like her remark about discovering the "lunatic fringe"). I suppose if I had wandered into the hornet's nest to do direct research on them, I'm sure I'd have a few thoughts to share about how they sting.

Intelligent, insightful, highly informative, and for me, motivating. I have put her book "Roads to Dominion" on my Wish List. Diamond's work is an accessible resource for anyone wishing to get a grasp of the Religious Right and the danger it truly does pose to civil liberties in the US.

This is a very angrily written book. It is hard to take it too seriously even when there are some segments of truth. Author has an axe to grind.

This pioneering book of investigative reporting and political analysis sits on the shelves of everyone who aspires to a baseline knowledge of the Christian Right and its history.

More contemporary books by Rob Boston, Jean Hardisty and certainly Frederick Clarkson's Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy will get you into the subject in a more digestable form. Once having aquired a grasp of the subject, Spiritual Warfare will make alot more sense.

Diamond traces the history of the extreme Religious Right and its forays into international military actions and domestic suppression. The documentation in this book is thorough and reputable. Make no mistake, this book is not for everyone: she's writing for academians and is not aiming for entertainment. However, the book, at times, is riveting in its portrayal of how extreme Right Wing organizations (CBN, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition being examples) are set up with a facade of humanitarian aid while behind the exterior, they funnel massive amounts of money to foces not entirely aligned with Christianity (like the Contras). Admittedly, there are a few times when her opinion squeaks through the content but for the most part, the facts speak for themselves. I found it a great read.

Sara Diamond is somewhat more responsible and restrained than other Leftist writers, like Chip Berlet and Skipp Porteous, who think that conservative Christianity poses a threat to democratic traditions in America. But in the end, Diamond falls victim (or willingly perpetuates) the same lie: that mainstream evangelical Christians are evil and part of a plot to abolish democracy because they tend to vote Republican.

To reach these conclusions, Diamond (as well as the other aforementioned Mother Jones contributors) dwells on the fringe of American religion (Christian Reconstructionists, independent fundamentalists, Kingdom Now charismatics). All told, these groups probably don't even add up to 1 million people - small change in a country as big as America - and the bulk of them (independent fundamentalists) are relatively apolitical, however authoritarian and anti-intellectual they are within their own communities. These groups and their agendas cannot be extrapolated to mainstream Evangelicalism, the 20-30 million Christians represented by the National Association of Evangelicals and similar denominational entities.

Diamond's book contains a great wealth of information about right wing movements and any one interested in the history of anti-communism, conservative Christianity or other related movements should read it. Even a casual glance at the book reveals the enormous amount of time and effort that went into the book.

In this review, I'll focus on more sociological issues. First, I see this book as a contribution to the sociology of social movements. One of the strengths of the book is that it shows the importance of mobilization and organization building, a theme
emphasized in recent social movements research.

However, one thing I found interesting is that the book doesn't draw much from the "social movement cycle" literature, which argues that movements reach a peak and then decline. Diamond depicts a set of movements that looks like they are on the road to world domination.

Since the publication of the book, we have a little more perspective on right wing movements. They did gain an enormous amount of power, but there were limits and the movements are now in decline. Consider these simple facts: no GOP presidenial candidate has beat 50% of the vote since Bush '88, the Senate has slid back into the Democrat column and the House will probably revert to the Dems. Tonight, conservative
gubernatorial candidates in Jersey and Virginia have gone down in defeat. Prayer has not been re-instituted in all American
public schools, creationism is still taught in few places and
women still have the right to choose.

We have not encountered a theocratic
pusch. What can be said is that right wing movements have
done very well considering that they are in the numerical
minority and that liberal politics dominated up until the
mid-1970's. They did so using organizational techniques
now copied by all sorts of movements (like PACS, mail lists,
etc.), a point hammered home by Diamond's book.

Another criticism of the book is that it too easily adopts the
left/right dichotomy. Should one really classify conservative
Christians with atheistic pro-capitalist Ayn Rand cyberlibertarians?

One lesson that we've learned from political sociology is that
left/right distinctions can really mask deep differences. For
example, it would be folly to lump together Green movements,
labor movements and student movements. Diamond does discuss
differences in right wing movements in detail, but insists on
retaining the "right/left" framework, much to my dismay. I really wish that she had reshaped the rhetoric of the book to fit the data that she produced.

Maybe instead of "right wing," she should work out a general sociological theory that would predict why Ayn Rand libertarians are frequently to be found with conservative christians. It is suggested at some points that christians are manipulated by big business, which is the "masses are duped by the oppressor" theory of social movements. I've never bought this theory.

The real intellectual challenge is to explore how the cognitive
framework of these movements allowed for such divergent groups
to cooperate, and "they're the pawns of big business" seems a
cop out. Maybe a network analysis will do the job, or
a David Snow style framing argument. Maybe everything does
boil down to "big business" rules the world, but there needs
to be some more testing of different theories. I feel that the level of detail allows the evasion of theory building

and hypothesis testing.

Diamond has the data and talent for this kind of
project, but can she move away from the activist audience,
which demands accusation, to a scientific audience, which demands
clear hypotheses and tests against data?

To summarize: great data, fantastically detailed research,
could use a better or more subtle sociological framework.

If you think that rational, reasonable Americans can't be subjected to a theocratic putsch, you have another thing coming. Diamond is an expert at infiltrating radical fringe religious groups and getting the inside skinny on their plans and objectives. The objective is domination of the United States under the smiling face of Jesus, regardless of the richly diverse religious makeup of the country. There are those out there who would force you to follow their rules and their morality, because they believe they have all the answers. Diamond's research shows us how they might, and are indeed trying, to do exactly that. The ties are strong and many and lie just below the surface of the public consciousness. If nothing else, it will make you wonder what a given politician REALLY has on his mind when he names Jesus as his favorite philosopher.

The Christian Right is an enduring myth that has haunted left-wing academics ever since the election of Ronald Reagan. In the view of many liberals, a Protestant Taliban has emerged in the nation's heartland, with the goal of taking over the United States and wiping out all the "progress" society has made since the 1920s. Mainstream religious organizations - such as the Baptist Church, the world's largest non-catholic Christian communion - are really only fronts for this insidious, anti-modern movement. For reasons that are never explained, Roman Catholics, Muslims, and others whose social beliefs are far more conservative and politically-inclined than evangelical Protestants are never similarly excoriated or held as objects of terror by the liberal elite. This lapse is especially striking when one considers that Islam exists with the express purpose of becoming one with the State, and that Catholic social thought (which is the guiding ideology of JP2) is based on the idea of one national church, and that Catholic bishops routinely tell the laity how to vote not just on a few issues, but on virtually every issue facing voters. For some vague reason, it is Evangelicals - people like Baptists, who oppose state-established religion and government compulsion in spiritual affairs - who are the subversives we must fear and restrain.

While a number of religious personalities (Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.) have espoused views that congeal with the agenda of the Republican Party, none of these individuals have ever "crossed the line" into subversive or illegal activity. They have simply expressed their views; until the First Amendment is withdrawn, they have every right to do so.

The few genuine "Christian Right" movements - Christian Reconstructionism, for example - are smaller and less influential than PETA, let alone established, effective public policy groups like the Cato Institute or NOW.

Why do people like Sara Diamond insist on portraying Evangelical Christians are demons? The truth is Evangelicals are fairly moderate compared to other religions - they permit divorce; they permit non-reproductive sex within marriage; many of them embrace the ordination of women in the church and complete equality of women in the social sphere. Their churches are generally democratic, with all members having an equal say in the spiritual and economic administration of the church. They believe in purely voluntary religion - no forced conversions or forced retention of members.

America, you have nothing to fear from Baptists or Pentecostals. You have more to fear from misguided, misinformed people like Sara Diamond, who'll set you against your neighbor and close down the possibility of real dialogue about the issues facing our society.

This book does a good job of exposing one of the most insidious power grabs in history! Fundamentalists of any religion are pretty darn scary because they are so sure they are right. For example, I once talked to a woman who was distributing anti-abortion literature. I pointed out that Ronald Reagan's cuts to social service programs caused the US to go from the fourth highest infant mortality in the FIRST world to the highest in just 4 years and that this killed more babies than abortions. The woman looked upset and said, I don't know, I voted for him because my pastor told me to. The "Christian" right has tried to pass "pro-family" referenda in Colorado that would have prevented the state from interfering when a father sexually abused his children. I grew up in a southern Baptist church in a very small town. I got tired of being told I should obey the men and that men were smarter than women. By the way, the governer of one state is a leading Southern Baptist. His son and another Boy Scout, tortured a dog to death a few years ago. These boy scouts were never prosecuted. At the local evangelical church, cards are passed out telling people how to vote! Federal family planning funds are being given to "faith-based" groups who preach abstinence. The head of the US Baptist church this last fall said that the US should attack Iraq. IF that's not wielding right-wing power, I don't know what is. The wife of the head of the Southern Baptist convention said that she always defers to her husband if they cannot agree on an issue--then she goes out and buys a new hat! I got all of this out of the mainstream, not the liberal press. Remember, Hitler was a Christian. His first successful campaign slogan was "Kinder, Kirchen, Kuchen." In the early 1920's, he began his rise to power being against women's rights--women should only care for children (Kinder) and stay in the church (Kirchen) and kitchen (Kuchen). The main reason fundamentalists in this country complain that they have no power is that they, so far, can't have everything their own way. They have no idea about give and take and the possibility that they might be wrong. They want to punish evil--but we are all evil and good. I read the New Testament a lot, it sustains me in this world of violent religious people. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." "As ye have done to the least of my brethren, so have ye done to me." I have had fundamentalist neighbors tell me that it is all right to destroy the environment because God put all this here for humans to use. I can't imagine what we are going to say to God when we stand before him and explain why we destroyed so many parts of his beautiful creation.