[There is a very dangerous link between these two wars
that many well-meaning Christians are failing to discern]

By: SR Shearer

Anders Breivik used anger against women to cast himself as a crusader, believing feminism is destroying the West from the inside and creating space for Islamism.


In APPENDIX 2 of our recent main article, "Rick Santorum and the Continued Drift of the GOP into the Grip of Radical Right-Wing Christianity," we detailed the misogyny inherent in the concept of the Grail Quest - a type of misogyny that haunts not only many Protestant groups, but various right-wing Catholic organizations such as Opus Dei - and not only Opus Dei, but the entire Catholic clergy.

In the Grail Quest, SEXUAL SIN IS THE BESETTING HINDRANCE THAT ALL GRAIL SEEKERS MUST OVERCOME IN THEIR QUEST FOR THE "VISION OF GOD." The destruction of Grail Searchers through sexual sin is a never ending theme running through the entire fabric of the Grail Quest. The massive, even colossal, gravity of sexual sin in the mythology of the Grail Quest has no parallel in the Bible. So great does the fear of sexual sin loom in the eyes of the Grail Seekers, that strict forms of chastity come to encompass all those who enter the quest - a chastity under which the Templars, the Hospitalers, the Teutons, etc. all labored.

It's no accident, therefore, that the same chastity - THE KIND THAT LEADS TO THE ACTUAL FEAR OF WOMEN AS A CONTAMINATING INFLUENCE - has come to encompass many modern Christian organizations; but again, the fear so generated has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with the Grail Quest - and the extensive degree to which this kind of thinking has trickled into Christianity gives some indication as to the influence that Grail thinking has had on Western Christianity.


-- Antipas



Michelle Goldberg writes:

"Conservatives worried about the Islamization of Europe often blame feminism for weakening Western societies and opening them up to a Muslim demographic invasion. Mark Steyn's bestselling America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It predicted the demise of 'European races too self-absorbed to breed', leading 'to the transformation of Europe into Eurabia."

Goldberg continues:

"This neat rhetorical trick—an attack on women coupled with purported concern about Muslim fundamentalist misogyny—is repeated again and again in Islamophobic literature. Now it's reached its apogee in mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto, '2083: A European Declaration of Independence'. Rarely has the connection between sexual anxiety and right-wing nationalism been made quite so clear. Indeed, Breivik's hatred of women rivals his hatred of Islam, and is intimately linked to it. Some reports have suggested that during his rampage on Utoya, he targeted the most beautiful girl first. This was about sex even more than religion."

Anders Behring Breivik

NOTE: Anders Behring Breivik  is the confessed perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway. On 22 July 2011, Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers. Breivik's far-right militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks. It regards Islam and cultural Marxism as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe to preserve European Christendom.


Goldberg goes on to say,

"Breivik describes himself as a disaffected product of the Norwegian liberal political elite, furious at the way sexual instability has affected his own life. His father was a diplomat, stationed first in London and then in Paris. His parents divorced when he was a year old, after which his feminist mother married a Norwegian army captain, and his father wed a fellow diplomat who Breivik calls a 'moderate cultural Marxist and feminist'. Though he describes his stepfather as somewhat conservative, he nevertheless complains of a 'super-liberal, matriarchal upbringing', which he says has 'contributed to feminize me to a certain degree'.

"A terror of feminization haunts his bizarre document. 'The female manipulation of males has been institutionalized during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminization of men in Europe', he writes. He blames empowered women for his own isolation, saying that he recoils from the 'destructive and suicidal Sex and the City lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) ... In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metrosexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticizing soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess'."


The resentment by men of women and a yearning by men for a mythic sort of masculinity.

THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN: Men taking what they want from women

Libby Copeland agrees; she writes:

"Resentment of women and yearning for a mythic sort of masculinity is not unique to Breivik among mass murderers. As others have pointed out, it's a fairly common characteristic of these men (and they're usually men), including Jared Lee Loughner (author of a post arguing that college women enjoy being raped); Cho Seung-Hui, who stalked women before his massacre at Virginia Tech; George Sodini, who killed and wounded several women after complaining the opposite sex wasn't attracted to him; and Amish schoolhouse murderer Charles Carl Roberts IV, who specifically targeted girls. Former prison psychiatrist James Gilligan told the New York Times some years ago that for his patients, 'an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act'."

Indeed, in his 1997 book Violence, Gilligan suggests that "the patriarchal code of honor and shame generates and even OBLIGATES male violence [against women]."


In an extremely insightful analysis of the growing fear by conservative Christians of the West's feminization, Catholic William Kilpatrick writes:

"We've grown accustomed to video images of ten-year-old boys in Palestinian training camps, dressed like mujahideen and wielding AK-47's."

Kilpatrick continues in a very cynical tone:

"Luckily, the West knows how to respond to such shows of aggressiveness. For instance, in the last few years "tag" and similar games have been banned from numerous school playgrounds in the U.K. and the U.S. on the grounds that they are 'hazardous' and 'inappropriate'. So there, take that, you little jihadist!"

Kilpatrick goes on to say:

"As it did in the seventh century, Islam is taking on the appearance of an unstoppable MASCULINE force. But in the West the masculine spirit looks more like a ghost. In The Suicide of Reason, Lee Harris puts the matter in stark biological terms:

'While we in the West are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin, the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive, and ruthless'.

LEFT: Mujahideen children with rifles. RIGHT: Christian children with Ritalin.

"Sounds like Harris is talking war, but in reality his book is more about cultural conflict than armed conflict. War isn't necessary if the males of one culture can cow those of another culture into submission. Such intimidation might seem unlikely in the U.S. where the percentage of Muslims in the population is in the vicinity of one percent. Still, very small but determined minorities can sometimes impose their will on much larger majorities. For example, homosexuals make up only two to three percent of the population, yet gay activists have been highly successful in advancing the twin agendas of same-sex marriage and gays in the military. Likewise, thanks to CAIR and other activist groups, Muslims in this country have already begun to wield an outsize influence." [We urge you to see APPENDIX 1 to this article, "A Growing War between the Sexes." We also urge you to see our article, "The Left's Attempt to Break the Hold of Christians on the American Military Using Gay Rights as Their Battering Ram."]


The divine feminine

Kilpatrick continues:

"Meanwhile, Christianity, which ought to be the rival for the affections of wayward young men, seems to be undergoing a prolonged sexual-identity crisis. There is a serious problem in Christianity today, but it's the exact opposite of the one the popular media focuses on. To read the papers and certain works of popular fiction you would think that the main problem with Christianity is that it's too patriarchal: no women in the priesthood, no voice for women, no recognition of the divine feminine.

"But the reality is a different matter. Look around you the next time you're in church, and count the ratio of women to men. Normally, it's about two-to-one in favor of the women. Moreover, women are much more involved in church activities. The Notre Dame Study of Parish Life showed that 80 to 85 percent of those involved in parish ministries or in teaching religion were women. As one writer put it,

'... the Roman Catholic Church has a rather rigid division of labor. The men have the priesthood, the women have everything else'.

"As for Protestants, all the mainline denominations have female priests or pastors, and the Episcopal Church even has a female Presiding Bishop (who prayed to "our mother Jesus" at her installation). About twenty-five percent of Episcopal priests are women, as are about twenty-nine percent of Presbyterian pastors. But this has failed to produce the miracle of renewal that Catholic advocates assure us will follow upon women's ordination.

"Instead, mainline congregations have dwindled. As recently as 1960, mainline churches accounted for forty percent of American Protestants. Today it's about twelve percent. If present trends continue, the mainline churches will end up with an all female clergy, preaching to mostly female congregations in the few remaining churches that haven't been converted to mosques or condominiums.

"Contrary to what liberal Christians think, the feminization of Christianity is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Christianity is unattractive to many, not because it is perceived as too masculine, but because it's perceived as too feminine. Moreover, when you add the gospel of the divine feminine to the fact of lopsided church attendance, the problem only gets worse ... Men have enough trouble as it is with female spirituality and with sentimentalized hymns and sermons. To think that the notion of Jesus as the first feminist will sit well with them is sheer fantasy. Men are not inclined to take up their daily crosses to follow the androgynous one ..."

All the mainline denominations have female priests or pastors, and the Episcopal Church even has a female Presiding Bishop (who prayed to "our mother Jesus" at her installation). About twenty-five percent of Episcopal priests are women, as are about twenty-nine percent of Presbyterian pastors.


Kilpatrick goes on to say:

"But many Christian leaders still don't get it. As David Morrow points out in Why Men Hate Going to Church, many of the songs now sung in church -

'... have the same breathless feel as top forty love songs'.

"A feminized Christianity may work to attract a certain type of man, but he's probably not the man you want around when the local Imam starts practicing taqiyya on your congregation. When Islam, history's most hyper-masculine religion, is experiencing a worldwide revival and is looking to recruit more young men to its ranks, it might not be the best time for the Church to emphasize its feminine side.

"... because it's a large part of American culture, the health of Christianity ought to be of concern to all. Our culture derives much of its strength from its Christian faith, but a Christianity without a strong masculine presence won't be able to keep young men from defecting to the religion of guns n' roses. There are a lot of young men in our world who are uncertain whether to follow the sign of the crescent moon or the sign of the cross, but it's a good bet not many of them will be interested in following the "yield" sign which some contemporary Christians have taken as their emblem."


The renewed emphasis on Christianity as an AGGRESSIVE, MALE-ORIENTED religion surfaced for the first time on a large scale with the so-called "Promise Keepers Movement."

It is exactly here that the connection that Anders Behring Breivik makes between the feminization of the Christian West and the growing inability of Western societies to confront the Islamization of their culture becomes so important: According to Breivik, the only way this process can be stopped is if WOMEN ARE DOMINATED IN THE WEST IN THE SAME FASHION THAT THEY ARE DOMINATED IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD.  Sadly, this kind of thinking is catching on everywhere in evangelical churches throughout the country, to say nothing concerning the historic attitude of the Catholic clergy towards women.

The renewed emphasis on Christianity as an AGGRESSIVE, MALE-ORIENTED religion surfaced for the first time on a large scale with the so-called "Promise Keepers Movement."

Sarah Leslie, a woman, wrote at the time this movement first appeared in the 1990s -

"Across the country, throughout every denomination, tens of thousands of men are coming to major meeting extravaganzas to learn how to be better husbands and fathers. They come away from these events with rave reviews, testimonies of changed lives, and renewed faith."

NOTE: While one no longer hears much concerning the Promise Keepers any more, the movement is still "alive and well." And more than that, its ideology of male domination has been by now absorbed into the mainstream of evangelical thought and heartily embraced by such groups as NAR and countless other similar groups.

At the heart of the movement was a book by Robert Hicks entitled Understanding the Six Stages of Manhood. The book was published by NavPress and was endorsed by Dr. Dobson's Focus on the Family.

Leslie continues:

"Hicks orients himself around the concept of men as noble savage (which he refers to as Adam), a characterization anthropologist/humanist Margaret Mead gave primitive tribes. 'Even saints are savages', claims Hicks. Men are put through a guided workshop on how to get in touch with their savage self ... Hicks states that the second stage of a man's journey is Phallic."

NOTE: The focus on male genitalia in this chapter goes beyond the biblical, straight into the New Age. "Men have a deep compulsion to worship with our phallus," states Hicks (p. 29). Discussing this strange power of the male phallus (p. 35), especially in the context of male rites of initiation, is overtly pagan and not even remotely Christian.


Fascination with the phallus (i.e., the erect male sexual organ (penis) as it appears just prior to penetration of the female vagina) was common in the ancient world. Indeed, "penis


worship" is the basis of nearly all pagan worship. Nonetheless, it is exactly this kind of paganism that Hicks says Jesus embraced; indeed, he suggests that Jesus was a -

"... PHALLIC KIND OF GUY" [i.e. that He was stimulated sexually and that He possessed an aggressive sex drive.]

Specifically, Hicks says,

"... [while] it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman ... if temptation means anything, it means Christ was tempted in every way as we are ..." [p. 181]

Such a statement, of course, is BLASPHEMOUS - but it gives some idea as to how widespread this kind of thinking (i.e., the desire to re-establish male domination) has become - and indicates a growing (and very ugly) reaction in many otherwise "mainstream" segments of our society (and not just "Christian" ones) against the radical feminism countenanced by liberals over the past twenty years: Phallus worship celebrates the sex act as an act of male domination - and not just domination, but aggressive and even violent domination).

NOTE: Kilpatrick has a point when he writes "...very small but determined minorities can sometimes impose their will on much larger majorities;" that a "tipping point" can come that rips away the cultural norms that had dominated a society for generations and send it reeling in the opposite direction; and that point is this: A TIPPING POINT" MAY SOON BE REACHED REGARDING THE WEST'S FEMINIZATION AS MORE AND MORE MEN REBEL AT THEIR FEMINIZATION AS WELL AS THE FEMINIZATION OF THEIR CULTURE.


When this kind of male mindset - a mindset that has NO biblical foundation, but instead is justified by a resort to paganism - is linked to the kind of male domination inherent in the theologies of such Catholic groups as Opus Dei, and such Protestant groups as the "Promise Keepers," then we have the makings of a FIRESTORM that is aimed squarely at women all over the world, and now even in the Christian West.

All this gives credence to Daniel 11:38, an anti-female script that says -

"... he [ANTICHRIST] shall NOT regard the desire of women ..." (Daniel 11:38)

NOTE: While there are some who insist that this particular verse refers to the desire of women to "bring forth the Messiah," such an interpretation requires an inordinate amount of convolution and seems to imply that women are more desirous of this than men. The more likely interpretation is the "common sense" one - i.e., that he will oppose the "modern-day" desire of women to seek "equality" with men in the world of business and politics.


Obviously, then, we are NOT looking at some kind of "New Age" antichrist who has about him an aurora of the "Gaia spirit," as so many Christians presume, but a MASCULINE SUPERMAN -

AntiChrist is a SUPERMAN; he is not a metrosexual nor a female goddess

- a man who will put his trust in military power (Dan. 11:38); a "man's man."

THE ANTICHRIST: The Resitiutor Orbis

Most Christians have been led to believe that the antichrist will appear as a "new Age" Gaia-like figure.

NOTE: Again, this is the exact opposite of what most Christians have been led to believe - a "New Age" Christ with a Gaia-like spirit.


Max Mell, a contemporary poet, has said that underneath the thin cosmopolitan surface of today's feminized Western World lie all the "old heroes" still - Parsifal, Guinevere, Roland, Lancelot, Barbarossa, Tristan, Isolde, etc. They are implanted far too deeply in our collective memory to ever be rooted out by the fleeting fashions of modernity, secularism, and democracy - and who, like Arthur (the "once and future king" - the Resitiutor Orbis), stand ready to re-emerge and rescue us from the chaos and confusion of this present evil world. And there are more people than most would care to admit (many of whom are passing themselves off as Christians) who are calling us to embrace the concept of leadership that these old "warrior kings" represented - a kind of messianic leadership based on nobility of character, charisma and the ability to "get things done."

Indeed, many of the Christian men and women who are crying out for such leadership hold the concepts of what we today call "democracy" in utter contempt. To their mind, messianic leadership - not democracy - is the ideal. To such people, the messy and disordered condition of "politics as usual" - with all its sordid, back room deal-making and compromises - is a disgusting and vulgar thing, made all the more loathsome by people such as President Obama and what they see as the radical feminists, militant homosexuals and effete multiculturalists who surround him.

To such people, the messy and disordered condition of "politics as usual" - with all its sordid, back room deal-making and compromises - is a disgusting and vulgar thing, made all the more loathsome by people such as President Obama and the radical feminists, militant homosexuals and effete multiculturalists who surround him.

The longing for such a messiah rests on the bedrock of Western tradition, a tradition which the secular elites can hide and gloss over, but one which they have utterly failed to stamp out; it is far too deeply embedded in the Western psyche - so much so that British writers Norris J. Lacy and Geoffrey Ashe can write that such a messiah has been -

"... persistently imagined and hoped for - a new Constantine who will ... end civil strife and [the] usurpation [of political power by the moneyed elite] ... [who will] defeat ... [Christendom's] ... enemies, and bring back peace and prosperity."

And not only that, but - as Carolly Erickson, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, writes -

"... one who [like Arthur] dwells in the circle of the miraculous."

THE ONCE AND FURTURE KING: "... persistently imagined and hoped for - a new Constantine who will ... end civil strife and [the] usurpation [of political power by the moneyed elite] ... [who will] defeat ... [Christendom's] ... enemies, and bring back peace and prosperity."


There is, however, a dark and foreboding side to all this that goes beyond the heroic to the demonic and - when taken to the extreme - is precisely that which produces the David Koreshes and the Jim Joneses of our world; indeed, it goes a long way in explaining the death-like embrace of Hitler and the German people - one with the other - as they careened towards their final destruction in the waning days of World War II.

For those Christians who look for such a solution - maybe, just maybe - they'll get it, and a lot more than they had originally bargained for. The Bible says:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18; cf. I John 2:22; I John 4:3; 2 John 1:7)

God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries







Then make copies and take these copies out to the campuses where you live; pass them out; OR if that seems too "daring" for you right now, post them on telephone poles, the sides of buildings, on campus bulletin boards; post them in union halls, in the neighborhoods of the poor and downtrodden, near employment offices, wherever you can.

Once again, we URGE you to read (or re-read):




A war between the sexes: Who do you think is going to win?

A very wonderful and dear friend of mine, Constance Cumbey, once told me that Satan's greatest ruse is to first create a problem, and then offer the solution: the poison is not so much in the problem as it is in the solution. That is very true of all that follows.

There is a war afoot between men and women in this country and throughout the West that is slowly building to a crescendo. One sees it everywhere today - a hatred of one sex for the other: women who are tired of being BRUTALIZED by men, and men who are weary of women PUSHING themselves into heretofore sacrosanct, all-male preserves where the presence of women defies all logic and rationality. It's most extreme form has manifested itself in the effort by women to enter the military. Indeed, for some time now, radical feminists have been pushing to open military combat assignments to women; hard-line feminists believe that unless women can be admitted into the "combat arms" (i.e., into what they consider to be the "warrior class") they will always be considered "less than equal" to men, not only in the military, but in society at large - never mind the fact that the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended in November 1992 that women NOT be assigned to combat.


Testimony before the commission overwhelmingly indicated that differences in physical capabilities between men and women could not be tolerated in a combat situation in which the physical strength of EVERY member of a "combat team" is imperative to the team's success and safety - and this is to say nothing concerning the dangerous likelihood of inappropriate interpersonal relationships between the sexes, all the training to the contrary notwithstanding.

The conclusions were based on evidence from Desert Storm, where men serving alongside women close to the front were required to set up tents, dig latrines and carry heavy loads for their female counterparts; the situation led to EXTREMELY bad feelings on the part of the men; that - combined with a pregnancy rate which approached 10 percent among enlisted women (coupled with family/child-care problems) - meant the non-deployability rate among military women was three to four times greater than men. The scuttlebutt among the men concerning these rates was that their female counterparts were getting pregnant in order to avoid deployment - and evidence suggests that in many instances, the men's suspicions were not wholly without merit.

Indeed, surveys indicate that much of the problem of sexual harassment in the military stems in part from the men's resentment over double standards favoring women insofar as physical strength is concerned, such as the gender-norming of test scores [in the army - push-ups, chin-ups, carrying back packs, running, etc.; in the air force - the inability of female pilots to withstand high "G-forces" in tight turns in combat aircraft, etc.; in the navy - the inability of women to handle the heavy lifting of machinery and fire hoses in emergency combat situations, etc.] which lead to the false assumption that women are not having a problem staying up with men physically in a military environment - WHEN, IN FACT, THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a former member of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, writes,

"It is hard to imagine a better prescription for future conflict between military men and women."


In addition, and on a much more somber and cheerless note insofar as radical feminists are concerned, a great deal of collateral evidence has been gathered which also suggests that women are not psychologically equipped to deal with the horror, barbarism and brutal shock of savage and violent physical combat - which is not the same thing as taking care of the wounded in a MASH unit, where there can be no doubt women have acquitted themselves honorably. In both Panama and Desert Storm, women close to combat in non-medical roles (both enlisted and officers) tended to freeze. The evidence suggested that women reacted to the horror of brutal physical combat in exactly the same way women have always reacted, and would react today if caught in a gang fight in east Los Angeles between the Bloods and the Crips: they froze and were reduced to a whimpering, terrified mass of humanity - and it didn't seem to matter how much training they had been given.

But despite all the evidence which tends to indicate that women are physically and psychologically not suited for combat, combat roles are, nonetheless, being opened to women. The reason? - the "Tailhook Scandal" of some ten years ago. The Tailhook Scandal gave a boost to the efforts of the feminists that no amount of lobbying could - it was the proverbial "foot-in-the-door" which then Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and others used to force the door open for women. Following the release of the report on Tailhook, then (i.e., 1993) Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced that women would immediately be assigned to combat-aviation training. Repeal of the law exempting women from combat ships came next, and the Pentagon began moving to allow women into more dangerous positions in or near land combat sites - and the military fell into what amounted to as a pell-mell rush to accommodate women in these new roles, an effort which has cost the Pentagon millions and millions of scarce dollars to retrofit ships, tanks, etc. for females.


Why the rush? - the fear by male officers to be perceived as "politically incorrect," a charge which today ruins careers. For example, Donnelly - reporting on what's happening in the navy - writes,

"This (i.e., the "politically correct" navy) is the new Navy: a man's career depends on having the 'correct' view on women, as defined by feminists who know how to exploit sexual politics to get their way."

She goes on to retell what she describes as the "fatuitous" transformation of former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Kelso; she writes, "... Kelso said he started to change his mind about women in combat when the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings caused him to realize that 'there really is a jungle in the workplace'. Kelso also now suggests that the answer to any 'execution problems' with women in combat (e.g., the "love boat" phenomenon and getting men to do the "heavy-lifting" for women, etc.) ... is 'the right kind of training' ... (i.e., training designed to deal with interpersonal sexual problems through the use of condoms, abortions, etc. and to prompt men to be more willing to help their women compatriots out physically)."

Kelso's change of heart evidently saved him from the aftermath of Tailhook; when Navy Secretary Dalton - who by then had become nothing more than a "water carrier" for the feminists - moved to fire Kelso for his so-called "lack of leadership" in the Tailhook affair, Defense Secretary Aspin intervened to save him, at least in part because he had changed his mind about women in combat.

Donnelly concludes that the Defense Department - under intense political pressure from the feminist lobby - now finds itself "... condoning a new policy of (feminizing the military) that is ... demoralizing to men ... (The military) has capitulated on issues that will affect its combat readiness for decades to come."

These are the kinds of policies which lead one to the belief that the liberal elites are out of touch with reality. When "push finally comes to shove" in the military, when women are finally tested in a physically violent and brutal combat environment, THEY WILL FAIL (and I speak here as a combat veteran of the Vietnam War) - and all the Pat Schroeders of the world will not be able to hide that failure. And when that happens, it could begin a chain reaction against feminism which may not end until women are driven back into the kitchen, bare foot, pregnant, and stripped of all their many otherwise legitimate social and workplace gains.


One is left breathless at the naiveté of the liberal elites - what they're doing here (and in other places - such as pushing a radical homosexual agenda, multi-lingualism, multi-culturalism, etc. - agendas which clearly fly in the face of the cultural values of ordinary Americans) is playing right into the hands of the Religious Right. They're forcing a showdown on issues which they cannot possible win over the long run. By pushing their agenda into the absurd, by challenging the Religious Right on turf they are ill equipped to fight on, they are making it easy for advocates of the Religious Right to paint them as just that - "absurd."

And, more ominously and forebodingly, if extreme elements in the Religious Right have their way, in the end, what they may be doing is signing their own DEATH WARRANTS; after all, when well-known Reconstructionists can cavalierly suggest that "... the divorce problem will be solved in a society under God's law because any spouse guilty of capital crimes (adultery, homosexuality, Sabbath desecration, etc. - parenthesis in the original) WOULD BE SWIFTLY EXECUTED, thus freeing the other party to remarry," execution for supporting homosexual rights, radical feminism, etc. may not seem as far fetched as it now appears.

Absurdity in the one direction (the left) can - more often than we care to admit - lead to absurdity in the other direction (the right); the problem here is that right-wing absurdity [i.e., absurdity carried out "in the name of God"] has led in the past to the crematoria of Hitler's Death Camps.