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

Rating:
Summary: This Book Has Proven Itself
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: This Book Has Proven Itself
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A reductionist debunking of Christian Fundamentalism
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but fundamentalists have rights, too.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but fundamentalists have rights, too.
Review: 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.