The Christian Fundamentalist’s Erotic Dream

“[T]he erotic dream of Amreican fundamentalism: a restoration of chivalry,
a cleansing of impurity, a nation without sin, an empire of the personal as political.”
From Jeff Sharlet‘s
The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism
at the Heart of American Power

by Chicago Man Flickr/creative commons

by Chicago Man
Flickr/creative commons

This dream is especially important to understand, particularly as we await the pending Supreme Court decision that is likely to authorize federal same-sex marriage without interference from the states.

Either way the court goes, this singular decision promises to further divide the christian right from everyone else. This dream, this sexual fantasy, helps explain the root of the intense, personal, sexual represssion at the heart of the right’s hatred of women and especially lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) people. As Sharlet puts it:

Today’s Christian conservatives define themselves as apart from the world, and yet the modern movement aims to enjoy its fruits. T0 the biblical austerity of chastity, they add the promise of mind-blowing sex, using the very terms of the sexual revolution they rally against. And that’s just the beginning. Sexual regulation is a means, not and end. To believers, the movement offers a vision grander even the the loveliness of a virgin: a fairy tale in which every man will be a spiritual warrior, a knight in the service of the king of kings, promised the hand, the heart, and, yes, the sexual services of a “lady.”

This chasm of desire is what lies between those who want equality for everyone, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (along with a strongly enforced separation of church and state to prevent laws that incur on these rights) and those who are deeply committed to preventing that from ever happening.

Remember the Puritans who gave birth to American fundamentalism? They were so fundamental and annoying in imposing their questionable beliefs onto others that England sent them away to the North American wilderness centuries ago. By 1735 American fundamentalists comprised two strands, populist, battling domestic politics, “to be conquered and conformed to the will of God,” and “elite fundamentalism aimed at the manipulation of politics in the rest of the world” towards the same end. Sharlet continues, “Both populists and elites call their attempts to control the lives of others ‘evangelism.'” (Sharlet)

Today’s American evangelical fundamentalists comprise modern-day Dominionism, and I have been focused on the largest, oldest, and most secretive dominionist cult called The Family or The Fellowship for some time now. The reason for this is because its members include hundreds of current office holders who perforce have a huge conflict of interest with a money trail of misuse of your hard-earned tax dollars in their pursuit of replacing democracy systematically with (their skewered version) of god’s law.

Don’t despair, though! We actually have within our power a way to force their resignations, en masse (see 1816 for the precedent), and prevent dominionist candidates from ever holding elected office.

To every lawmaker proposing religiously-biased laws against workers, women, the poor, people of color, LGBT people, etc., or who blocks science, first must answer which of their oaths motivates them: (their skewered version of) god’s law or their oath to uphold our Constitution and our laws? Both oaths cannot coexist simultaneously because the former, religious allegiance, by its nature is always at the expense of rights guaranteed in the latter.

Are ready to embark upon a campaign in the next 15 months to disqualify from public service dozens of current American legislators, and even impeach a few Supreme Court justices, who are secretly aligned with one or more dominionist cults?

More to come tomorrow. Your thoughts and participation are desired.


The above is a continuation of my series about Dominionism and The Family, the largest and most dangerous of American dominionist cults. The series is a combination of direct experience and opinion-editorials for fair use/educational purposes. Again, I am not here to condemn any individual’s religious beliefs but I demand that they obey the law and respect our guaranteed right to live in a country where church and state are separate.


For more . . . 



Alison Gardner