Christian Dominionism over-rated?

[Comadreja]

I tried to get a response on this without starting a new thread, but the thread sank like a lead shot. So, is this whole reconstructionism/Dominionism over rated as a threat to Democracy? After all, the Christian Coalition is just about irrelevant anymore.

[OhioArtist]

1. Well...

I'm not sure of what you speak, but I just had to say I love the quote you're using as a sig. I've never seen that one before.

[BeHereNow]

28. Go here:

To learn about the dominionists and their infiltration
in our government and their plans for our future...
http:www.yuricareport.com

Several essays on them, but my personal favorite
is "The Despoiling of America."
Still wakes me up in the middle of the night-
better than any horror movie as far as scaring you to death.
BHN

[OhioArtist]

48. Thanks for the link.

nt

[truthspeaker]

2. they are a serious threat, possibly the most serious threat we face

If you think the Christian Coalition is not relevant anymore you aren't paying attention.

[izzie]

5. I would sure worry about them and who cares what the name is.

Those right wing nuts are scary and have a lot of power and are sure they are right and we are going to live as they say. I can recall laughing when they stated they would be on every school board and city board and re write text books but I am not laughing now.They did it.

[EV1Ltimm]

3. i personally think it is...

i mean, how smart can these people be? they believe 9/11 was caused by gays, feminists and abortionists -- so i deeply doubt they have the brains to overthrow government.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

4. Low on brains,

high in numbers.

[PassingFair]

34. They are the Republicans...

useful idiots. Frankly, they scare the crap out of me. Not because of their crackpot beliefs, but because * appeases them to keep afloat.
:scared:

[leesa]

16. Brains don't matter. They wouldn't use them if they had them

They do what they are told to do by the cons that lead them. There only goal is to win. They have no morals or conscience so they will use whatever means they can to meet their goal of forceful dominance. In case you hadn't noticed they have fully taken over all three branches of the government and have heavily infiltrated both parties and they control the media.
How smart can they be? They are on a mission.

[BeHereNow]

29. But they have-

They are in all the chairs that matter, power wise.

[burythehatchet]

43. Hitler wasn't all that smart either.

[supernova]

6. If anything it's underrated

We talk a lot, almost ad nauseum, about the undue influence the RR has on the GOP here on DU. But DU is not the general public. We're a bunch of hyper-aware politicos.

The general American population really doesn't understand that the RR is too much of a bad thing or why that is so. We need to sell them on it.

[NJCher]

7. might I remind you

That moveon.org now has more members that the Christian Coalition had at its prime?

BTW, Axel, is that pic photoshopped or for real?


Cher

[Comadreja]

53. The photo

This one is for real. There was an article about it and how Bush made the most of this religious photo op.

[BiggJawn]

8. I spent 9 years watching Pat Robertson daily. it's NOT "over-rated"

My "Every knee shall bend" thread sank pretty quickly, too. guess I needed to make some references to "myths" or something to keep it afloat with a flame war.

I too think it's an under-rated threat.

To most, it sounds like a good idea. Shoot, they even introduced laws to "restore" religious freedom and the Constitution, didn't they? It's good that our elected ones finally realize their Holy Responsibility....<sarcasm>

There's nothing in that "Religious Freedom" bill about TRUE religious freedom. it's all about making it a CRIME to hold to any non-Christian view. The Supreme Court could not have any say over the Judge Roy Moores of this country. "State's Rights", y'know.

Dark Ages ahead. imagine it being a felony to report that Hubble is looking 14 billion light-years away. Blaspemy! Every school kid knows (they should, we have stacked the school boards with "Godly Men") that the universe is only 6,000 years old!

Teaching the myth of "Creation Science" next to the THEORY of Evolution is "balanced"??? So what happens in a few years when they "phase out" teaching Evolution?

It's a danger. Dominionism is tied to the Neo-Cons because they both see the US becoming an Empire and ridding the world of Islam, then Judaism.

I was surprised to find out that my GF didn't know that your more fundy Protestant churches believe that Catholics are not Christians. I thought everyone knew that?

[Roaming]

10. Responding strictly to Creation Science v. Evolution

This is probably one of the most misunderstood debates, in terms of what one side thinks the other side believes.

Let me clarify: As a Christian, I reject the idea that creation developed by chance or by accident. (And this is scientifically SUPPORTED by science in the Anthropic Principle.) That does not necessarily mean that I believe the earth is only 10,000 years old.

An evolutionist can point to species changing adapting over time to new environments and can demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old. That does not necessarily mean he cannot be a Christian.

The bottom line is both trains of thought go back to how it all began--before the Big Bang--was it chance or by design? IMHO, it really is as simple as that, and I don't think it is a problem for students to debate this.

[BiggJawn]

13. Yes, it is mis-understood.

And as an Atheist, I reject the idea that there was a "Creator" or a "God" who made everything out of nothing.

There is a place to teach Religious Dogma. It's called Church, NOT the Public School.

And since you're here on this board, Roaming, let me tell you that it has been explained Ad Nauseum that there is a HUGE gulf between Christians like you, and the Fundamentalist "Dominionists" who have hijacked your religion. I'll not go into it other than to state that YOU are not the problem (at least I hope you're not)

To these people, the Earth *IS* 6,000 years old, and to believe otherwise, or even question that "fact" borders on Heresy.

"Anthropic Principle"...is that anything like "Inteligent Design"?
I believe both are more related to Philosophy than any of the "harder" sciences, yes?

[Roaming]

21. More on the anthropic principle...

I'm a relatively new member here, so I have not participated in any prior discussions about the "fundamentalist dominionists" who've hijacked Christianity. I look forward to learning more as I browse and participate in debates. I guess I'm not even sure what that phrase means yet.

Anyway, tons has been written about the Anthropic Principle. Following this paragraph is just one reference from the web that I quickly found; there are many, many others out there. (As with all scientific principles, there is great discussion and debate within the community. I believe that students may be edified by studying this, right along with all other scientific research, to help them reach a conclusion.)

"The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist. The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, another example of Paley's watch."

Here's the link: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm which provides some data.

Anyway, it does not prove or disprove the existence of God; it is simply an observation of the nature of the universe, based 100% on scientific fact, and I believe it has a place for discussion in education.

[SanchoPanza]

24. Cart Before the Horse

"'It is demonstrable,' said he, 'that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings.'" -Master Pangloss of Voltaire's Candide

The Anthropic Principle makes the assumption that the human species is the ultimate end of any evolutionary model for life, and from that baseless assumption concludes that, because the conditions for stimulating the evolutionary process were perfect to reach this end, the process itself and the stimuli involved in it were at some point in time established and put into motion by a force intending on that result. In the logic vernacular this is called the Questionable Cause fallacy, or in layman's terms "Putting the Cart Before the Horse". As in horses meet the requirements for pulling carts perfectly, therefor horses were 'designed' to pull carts.

Using that format, what the Anthropoc Principle states is that the universe in which humanity lives and has developed meets perfectly the requirements necessary for humanity exist in its current state. Therefor the universe was designed to exist as a host for humanity. The problem with that postulate is that evolutionary theory places the suitability of an organism to its environment squarely on the shoulders of the organism itself. In other words, humanity as well as other Earth-bound organisms have consistently and constantly adapted to better live in their environment.

[BiggJawn]

32. I don't think that's exactly what is meant by "Creation Science".

What I have heard it desribed as is plain and simply teaching the Book of Genesis as "Scientific FACT".

Now my ticket's punched in Electronics, not Philosophy, so forgive me, but wouldn't saying that Bread was designed for mould because it gets mouldy be anthropic principle in action?

[salin]

15. However those engaging (from the RR) in the debate

don't allow for debate. All facts that don't conform to a specified, bounded, explanation... are "work of the devil" to challenge our faith.

While I was raised Christian, and like you, never saw an inherent conflict, I was never exposed to fanatical, blinded, biblical literalism. While that type of thinking is loud in the debate - there will be know debate. It really conjours up the image of the flat earthers - who held great political sway - of a much earlier historical era.

[Roaming]

22. Growing up, I did see ONE inherent conflict, and that is the insistence

by some scientific minds that life evolved by CHANCE.

Mathematicians have since calculated the odds of that being the case and they are overwhelmingly against all life developing just by chance. I've heard the comparison to a bunch of monkeys typing for a certain number of years being able to produce the works of Shakespeare, etc. Mathematicians have actually disproven that to be possible.

[southerngirlwriter]

27. Right.

I believe in evolution, but I believe God designed it (how fucking creative can you get? Very cool) and set it in motion.

To me, that takes a lot less faith than the idea that everything sprung by accident out of nothing. :shrug:

[JHB]

38. But it didn't develop by "chance"...

...it was governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Randomness within rules is something very different than randomness alone.

A mathematical model that doesn't accurately reflect what it purports to describe is worthless.

By the same argument, the odds were infintesimal that a human being would be born with your exact genetic and psychological makeup, but YOU are here nonetheless. Does that mean YOU are an inherent conflict? Or does that mean one should be more circumspect about what one "proves" on the basis of probabilities?

[Roaming]

42. Yes, but who set the laws of physics and chemistry?...

If the laws of physics and chemistry didn't already exist then randomness within those laws would not exist... I can feel my brain stretching just contemplating all this...

[truthspeaker]

46. that's a religious question, not a scientific one

Science doesn't say god (or gods) don't exist. It just considers such questions beyond the realm of science. Science deals with natural explanations. Some of us think scientific explanations are all there are - but we're not trying to teach that in schools.

Science cannot demonstrate that the universe was not created by a supernatural entity. But science can demonstrate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and there was not a worldwide flood 4-10,000 years ago.

[Comadreja]

54. Yabbut...

science cannot demonstrate that there is no Santa Clause either.

I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose. -- Clarence Darrow

[JHB]

47. Why would there need to be a 'who' setting them?

When we get into this area, I get the feeling it simply comes down as to how one views the world:

Some feel it makes more sense or are more comfortable believing that in the end there is some kind of guiding intelligence running the show, and the thought that there might not be scares the hell out of them.

Others feel the world makes more sense if what we got is how the chips fell, and the idea of a guiding intelligence scares the hell out of THEM, because they think he's nuts! :crazy:

Your milage may, probably does, and maybe even should, vary. :toast:

[truthspeaker]

49. those mathematical calculations are flawed

First, we don't have enough data on the early earth to calculate the "odds" of life arising from those conditions.

Second, given that there are likely billions upon billions of earth-sized planets in the universe orbiting yellow starts - a billion to one chance is actually pretty good odds!

I mean, the odds that my parents would meet and produce offspring were about 8 billion to 1 - yet here I am.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Apples and oranges here

Most mainstream Christians accept evolution and differ from atheists only in saying that God got it all started.

The fundamentalists believe that the account in Genesis is literally true, that God took only seven literal days to zap everything into existence.

[truthspeaker]

45. evolution has nothing to with the Big Bang, or chance vs. design

The wingnuts have convinced their followers that their kids are being taught atheism in schools under the guise of "evolution". It's a load of BS. Evolution is the descent with modification of all life on earth from a common ancestor. Nothing more or less.

[truth2power]

23. You're right.

"I was surprised to find out that my GF didn't know that your more fundy Protestant churches believe that Catholics are not Christians. I thought everyone knew that?"

I know a fundie who believes that. :eyes:

[BiggJawn]

31. I WORKED with people who belived that and WORSE...

This one guy, who I later figured out was into "Christian Identity", Believed that Janet Reno had it "in" personally for Dave Koresh, He didn't believe in banks, I saw him with as much as $1500 in cash on him at any time, didn't believe in "taking" licenses from the government, ergo, he held no drivers license, citing as his authority the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and..

And this one is good, scared the pee out of me when I heard it....Cain slew his brother Abel and was bannished from the garden. As he wandered in the wilderness, he got really horny. so he got jiggy with the animals, and thus were created all the non-White races of the world....
The Pope is the Antichrist, Catholics are hoo-doo cultists who worship Mary, yada, yada, yada....

Oh, and the Social Security number is the Mark of the Beast....

[salin]

33. yikes...

keep that dude up in your part of the state ... please...

[BiggJawn]

37. Sorry, he's in the Central part...

Oh, and he believes in the "Sanctity of Marriage, too. So much that he's been married about 7 times....

But he doesn't get marriage licenses (that "license" thing again) He files corporation papers with the SOS to form a corporation for the "purpose of pursuing Matrimony"...

And he owns guns, too.

[On the Road]

9. I Don't' Think Dominionism Will Ever Succeed in the US

A clear majority are against the type of religious rule that it's trying to impose.

It's danger is in its being underground and having many closet supporters in influential places. As long as it stays below the radar, many Republican candidates will have Dominionists as one of their constituencies. There will never be enough support for a Dominionist government -- the Bush administration is about as close as it will come. The influence will be felt in many small ways.

Organizations like the Christian Coalition don't matter so much. In fact, Dominionism grew out of the tiny conservative Calvinist denominations. But evangelicals in general will be attracted to any philosophy that seems to be based on the Bible.

Until, that is, it's exposed for what it is -- a Christian version of the Taliban.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. But the dominionist fundamentalists will be targeted for manipulation

by the winger neocons if they think it will help them achieve their PNAC/neocon goals. I am still not so sure that Dominionism itself will not rise to power on the coattails of the neocons. Another major "terrorist" incident or attack in a major US city, martial law gets declared and November elections get suspended. The next step could easily be for the neocons to help cement their power by implementing the type of legislation favored by the Dominionists.

The "useful idiot" Dominionists would only be too eager to offer their support to the new Dictator in Chief and to assume the role of the civilian informants in Nazi and communists dictatorships to inform on their fellow citizens. They would doubtless be convinced that they were doing God's work in helping their god anointed holy leader overcome the satanist inspired and directed forces of evil opposing him.

For more details on the neocon's manipulation of the fundamentalists and Dominionists movements, see the article "The Despoiling of America." (link below)


I suspect that most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli, nevertheless, it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been accepted, praised, and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White House and his precepts are blindly adopted by the so-called “Christian” Dominionists. Kevin Phillips tells us in his masterful book, American Dynasty that Karl Rove, political strategist for President George W. Bush, is a devotee of Machiavelli, just as Rove’s predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the elder Bush.<26> In fact, there has been an incredible effort to dilute the immoral implications of Machiavelli’s teachings. Today’s best apologist for Machiavelli is one of the most influential voices in Washington with direct connections into the oval office.

Michael A. Ledeen was a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a counselor to the National Security Council and special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig in 1985. His relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least to the early 1980’s.<27> Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for military intervention in Nicaragua and for assistance to the Contras. (Ledeen was also involved in the Iran-Contra affair.)<28>

Today, in 2004, Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute and according to William O. Beeman of the Pacific News Service, “Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned.”<29>

Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980’s. Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: “What would you recommend if you were going to advise the President as to foreign policy?”

From "The Despoiling of America" at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm

[On the Road]

17. In Comparison to a Truly Dominionist Government,

the steps that Bush has taken so far (eg, the Patriot Act) are baby steps. And look what controversy and opposition they've already generated.

Let's say there were a military coup. In the US, no way the army or the populace would go along. Let's say there were an attempt to cancel elections. Even after another terrorist attack, I do not believe it would be successful.

We are a long, long way from a Dominionist government. Any serious attempt to get there by hijacking the laws and constitution is going to cause an explosion from the majority of us that value the American system.

That's one thing I like about this country. A lot of people don't pay attention, but when the issue is brought to a head, a majority is usually on the right side of the issue and not afraid to say so. Evangelicals are, and have always been, a minority.

[pacifictiger]

12. I think it is absolutely

under-rated and dangerous because it is not limited to just one group/organization - a coallition of the willing you might say - and they have been targeting and moulding young minds behind the scenes to be the leaders of tomorrow. There are already a number of young interns in washington right now that were groomed for this purpose. Current US attorney general's wife is on the board of Patrick Henry College. Rigid right wing think tanks been busy at work for the past 20 years, many of whom are biblical literalists - meaning they think they are among the chosen few and that the rest of humanity will be destroyed by armageddon. Whoever controls washington, its military, and its secret cia operations, influences the rest of the world.

It is the continued goal of world political and economic dominance by a few, controlling the masses under the guise of religion, where the Church of Rome Empire left off.

Is it any accident that the mafia was so closely interwoven with the church? Is it any accident that the church and the ruling families of europe were aligned? With the massive european migrations to the u.s. 1890-1920ish did those influences also migrate? Did the mafia morph from booze running to drug running, all the while influencing politicians, loving and profiting from weapons of war and creating chaos? Did the mafia go from blue collar, influencing unions, to white collar, influencing wall street? Catholic Church turning a blind eye to the plight of holocaust victims and profiting? Vatican bank misdeeds and connections to the creation of BCCI? Pat Robertson creating and influencing media indoctrination network with political focus under the guise of religion and also connections to BCCI. More and more extreme religious hardliners being appointed as federal judges outside of normal confirmation process? Scalia on the supreme court?
What we have now is commercial globalization, with no secular political globalization oversight of checks and balances. United Nations is the best we have and they've done their best to substantially weaken that institution. Sounds to me very akin to the days of Roman Catholic countries venturing into foreign lands for profit and control and reporting back only to rome.

[Gordon25]

14. You must be joking!

Let's see, now.

1. Scalia, thier primary representative on the Supreme Court, gives speeches claiming the authority of the government derives from God, even though our founding documents claim the authority of government arises from the consent of the governed. And that Democracy unfortunately gets in the way of the argument for divine authority, but that the faithful should keep up the struggle.

2. The Christian Reconstructionist (i.e., Dominionist) Ahmansen family financed the purchase of the two companies which make the machines and write the secret software which now counts more than seventy-five percent of all votes cast in national elections, and in many cases now, does that counting without any kind of paper ballot back up in case of computer malfunction. The software has what look to any intelligent observer like multiple intentionally included backdoor access points to allow manipulation of the vote count totals and to erase any evidence of tampering.

3. Bush, at their demand, has proposed the first ammendment to the U.S. Constitution to ever take away rights. For an ammendment banning gay marriage to be found constitutional, the Supreme Court would have to readopt the stance that the long discredited "separate but equal" argument is admissable.

4. They have managed to coerce the Bush administration into forcing the U.S. Park Service to stop selling books on evolution in park gift shops at places like the Grand Canyon, and to sell books on "creationism" in their place.

5. As a poster above mentioned, they have taken over many local school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and have put people into positions of power in both houses of congress and throughout the current administration executive branch.

6. One of their members, a general rank officer on active duty, gives sermons (or did until it became widely publicized) about our "holy crusade" in Iraq and about the "Infidel fanatics" faced by our righthous Christian troops in Afghanistan.

7. They have managed to coerce the Republican Party in Texas to adopt, as a plank in their party platform, the statement that the U.S. is a "Christian nation".

8. They hold that, in a Christian nation adultery should be punishable by death; as would homosexuality, drug use, and public disavowal of the authority of Christ.

9. They advocate, and have helped the neocons implement, a foreign policy based on agressive action in the Middle East designed to bring about the Apocalypse and subsequent Rapture.

10. They believe that God, acting through Scalia, put Bush in the White House to wield the Sword of Rightousness.

11. One of their representatives, who believes calico cats are signs of Satan and who spent nine thousand dollars of taxpayer money to cover the statue of Justice in the lobby of the Justice Building in Washington lest its bared marble breast offend God, is currently the most powerful law enforcement officer in the U.S., and has personaly undone thirty years and more of work to build constituional protections into the policies of our law enforcement agencies. I'm speaking of Ashcroft, of course, who begins every day's work by gathering his staff for mandatory morning prayer sessions.

One could go on, but to what end? So, good friend, I truly hope you are joking when you ask whether or not the Dominionists are overrated as a threat.

When you look at what they have accomplished in just over a decade or so (effective control of the white house and through it all federal law enforcement functions, strong advocates in both houses of congress, effective presence on the supreme court, strong ownership positions in national media, strong influence in most state legislatures and control of many local school boards, and control of the companies which control the vote count), I don't see how it could ever be possible to overestimate the threat they pose.

Gordon25

[icymist]

25. Oooo! I'm going to get a calico cat!

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[dusty64]

26. Exactly! They are VERY

scary and in control of ALL branches of government. This election (if fair or even allowed) IS the most important of our lifetimes, the fate of our Country is literally at stake.

[pacifictiger]

51. not just this country

but because of the military and cia strength, all countries of the world.

[devinsgram]

44. Brilliantly put

I would bet most of Americans today are not aware of these people and what they are trying to do.

[LastDemocratInSC]

18. As overrated as untreated termites in your house ... tick, tick, tick

No text.

[kayell]

20. That had to be written by a South Carolinian...damn termites

By the way, your nick is wrong. :hi:

[Karenina]

35. Ignore that deafening munching sound

at your own risk!

[ithacan]

19. the religious right has taken over the GOP!!!

they don't need the Christian Coalition anymore. They have the Republican Party.

Every single one of the GOP leaders in Congress have 100% rating from Christian Coalition. ALmost every single one of the GOP Senators have a 80-100% rating.

For info on all of this check out this website: http://www.TheocracyWatch.org/

There you'll see documented in great deal how the Religious Right managed to take over the GOP; how the entire current GOP agenda is absolutely the same as the Christian Coalition agenda, and other great but scary stuff...

[FlaGranny]

39. Religious fanaticism is

more frightening than just about anything I can imagine. Worst nightmare of all.

[Gordon25]

30. Too important a subject not to...

...kick!

Gordon25

[Matilda]

36. God save us from the Christian Right.

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Well, I've heard from an Iranian exile

that educated people there used to believe that the Ayatollah Khomeini would never succeed because only the ignorant supported him and the Iranian people enjoyed the social freedoms that they had under the Shah (who was nevertheless politically repressive).

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. Not at all...

Check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1247734

This is just one of a multitude of actins that have taken place recently where the RW Christian fundies have attempted to interject their religious views on the country. Be it school books, the teaching of evolution, a woman's right to contraceptives, access to federal funds for "services", or trying to ban gays from a county, they are still very actively pushing their agenda.

The Christian Coalition went underground when the country responded negatively to their political agenda during the time of Newt. Remember that? The CC was out in front, making their desires known VERY publically and the voters flipped and said no.

The CC saw the writing on the wall and then decided they needed to go covert -- Ralphie Reed became a regular GOP hack, better to take a whole party over from the inside then to just try to influence it.

The Christian Coalition IS the GOP now -- they are one and the same.

[pacifictiger]

52. check out

the chalcedon foundation also

[Comadreja]

55. They even ran for Pres

A la pat Robertson. That flop made them realize they had to go stealthy. My question was serious, because I have read a lot and still find it difficult to believe that these whackos could have the power they are purported to have. As well positioned as they are now, I think they realize that they cannot hope to impose their Old Testament theocracy on Americans in this generation...who would allow a law that makes even unmarried cohabitation a crime?

The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/christiantaliban.jpe

[Gordon25]

56. They are not thinking in terms of generations

For a good handle on understanding the mentality and methodology of Christian Reconstructionists (and other similar absolutist groups) read a short but powerful book called The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

Specifically dealing with the Reconstructionists, however, one must understand that while they seek to impose a theocracy in the US and ultimately upon the world, they also firmly believe we are in the End Times and that the Apocalypse and Rapture are going to happen in their lifetimes, or at latest in their childrens' lifetimes. Their rationale in supporting the neocons in taking Iraq, and prodding them to take out Syria, is that according to Biblical prophecy Israel must control the middle east as far as the Euphrates River before conditions are met for the Apocalpyse to happen.

We are not dealing with rational people, here. We are dealing with True Belivers, and all True Believers (of whatever persuasion) share one core belief in common: they all believe that since they have the only truth, all means necessary to achieve their ends are justified, and anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. Think about that, and think about the positions of power they have obtained as detailed in my post above. The ends always justify the means for a True Believer. Recently a reporter called Bush on his failure to find WMDs, and when he replied with his "program related activities" crap she called him on that. Bush's response? Literally, he said: "What's the difference. The important thing is Sadam's gone." In other words, "So what if I lied and killed ten thousand plus innocent Iraqi men, women and children and five hundred plus American service personnel? So what? I did it in a good cause. Saddam is gone. Iraquis are free. The end justifies the means.

They control the voting machines and software which count the votes. And if they don't think that is enough, they are already laying the public relations groundwork for suspending the November elections in the event of another terrorist attack in the U.S.; to keep the terrorists from "winning" by influencing the election. The outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a speech recently that the U.S. Constitution would probably not withstand another terrorist attack on U.S. soil; that probably martial law would have to be declared for the duration of the "war" on terror.

But the way things have gone in Iraq have shaken them a bit, I believe. I think they really believed we would be welcomed by singing crowds and carpets of flowers. Their scripts aren't working they way they have in the past. Their lies are catching up to them. Cracks are appearing in the facade of their near absolute control and manipulation of the media. Questions are being asked aloud instead of whispered. Investigations are starting. This is making them uneasy. As they get desperate when the polls keep getting worse they will become more unpredictable and dangerous. But we have seen in the past three months that their control is not yet total, and they may not be able to steal a second election.

November, 2004 is going to be a critical date in whatever history is eventually written of the rise and fall of the USA. If a regime change occurs, the experiment continues with all its warts and imperfections as we, as a nation, stumble our way on towards a dreamed of ultimate full realization of the ideals upon which our nation was founded. If the current regime stays in power, we are confronting the possible end of the grand experiment in Democracy, and/or the 2nd American Revolution. Should it come to that, my hope is a Yugoslavian-style "velvet revolution", but my fears remind me we are dealing with True Believers who perceive dissent to be both treasonous and sinful.

In the meantime, here's to regime change in Washington and freedom from all True Believers.

Gordon25

[Comadreja]

57. I can see it could go either way

The shocking jackbooted thuggery of the "Miami model" shows that at least some Police Depts. have adopted the tactics needed for a Calvinistic despotism. I saw the interview of the Chief there, a sneering Fascist if ever there was one. Still, the sectionalization of our country into States and regions is a protection of sorts. Lots of cities have spurned the Patriot Act outright. In liberal States, it is apparent that the Dominionists have to use much more subterfuge and move slowly. For example, here in WA we are plagued with a high profile anti-tax operative named Tim Eyeman, who is taking advantage of our State's referendum laws to basically defund the government one tax cut at a time. I suspect a bit of investigation would reveal who his handlers are, and they are probably GOP national strategists.

[jansu]

61. All one has to do to understand what they will do, is read the atrocities

in the Bible. If they truly believe the Old Testament laws and would practice those laws, they would be willing to have their disobedient children taken out and stoned to death. Would you think that they would hesitate for one minute to put to death a Non-Believer, for being a Non-Believer and other "crimes against God"?

We should all believe that they will do whatever is necessary to bring the end of this world as they have been taught and believe. Because if they don't, they will have to rethink their whole lives and beliefs and that is a hard thing to do, if you are not a thinker in the first place.

Our problem is, that we think that all people are like us, at the basic core! That others will act with goodwill toward others. THEY WILL NOT! We must be willing to fight them, be as ruthless as they are. We are entirely too polite and willing to believe that others have as much right to their positions as we do. This is fine, as long as those others are willing to play by the same rules. THEY WILL NOT!

THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DOING GOD'S WILL! No different than those people who are taught to tie on a bomb and blow themselves and others up.

BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! But, do not let fear keep you from fighting them. We are in a battle for our country and probably for our lives!

Not to bring Nazi's and Hitler into the discussion, but it is apropos. Hitler and his Nazi party, was extremely small and not seen as being very important. Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!

[Comadreja]

62. To use a bumper sticker term

Fundamentalist: I talk to GOD and I know what's best for you.

Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot therefore be true, I began to reflect what must be the condition of mankind trained from infancy to believe in error. -- Robert Owen

[Comadreja]

58. A review of The Despoiling of America

A Review of The Despoiling of America

By J. A. Bartlett at http://www.jabartlett.blogspot.com/

Posted Sunday, February 15, 2004


In the wake of Friday's post about Steve Erickson's LA Weekly piece on the conflict between Secular America and Theocratic America comes an article by Katherine Yurica. She's a researcher who's studied Pat Robertson's religious empire, and she's published a piece on her website titled "The Despoiling of America." If Yurica read the Erickson piece, she might substitute the word "dominionist" for "theocratic." She argues that the Bush administration is driven by a religious philosophy that substitutes Old Testament values for New--a philosophy that allows its adherents to do anything, even performing acts that most religious people would consider sins, in order to reach its goal of complete political domination of the United States and the world. The ends--a world in which all people must recognize "the crown rights of King Jesus"--justify the means, which is one of the points Erickson made about Bush believers and their approach to governance.

You may be tempted to believe, if you read the Yurica piece, that her argument is overblown and nearly hysterical, because what she is describing sounds almost loony, given our pluralistic traditions. But in the end, your disbelief in the likelihood of her story comes from your idological location, which is most likely in what Erickson called "the secular center," which "won't accept that there's a culture war going on." While people in the center envision a coming-together of religious folk from all across the spectrum, overcoming their differences to pursue religiously inspired goals for the improvement of humankind, the dominionists define the "true" form of Christianity in a very specific, narrow way. It has specific rules for taxation, jurisprudence, war--more like a legal code than a philosophy, and its legalistic form brooks no variation. It would look on the communitarian ideals espoused by the likes of a Jimmy Carter or a Desmond Tutu to border on heretical. (Read Yurica's hair-raising sections on why dominionists believe they have no duty to help the poor or care for the sick.) Just as you don't win a shooting war by surrendering your troops in a battle, you don't win a cultural or religious war by surrendering your tenets to heretical variations.

I have been waiting for years for mainstream denominations to stand up against the spread of theocracy. While there are stirrings now and then, there's still no broad and widespread movement to say, "No, you're wrong about this, and here's why." There's a tendency for mainstreamers to look at the charismatics, pentecostals, and evangelicals who make up the bulk of the theocrats and feel as though everyone has common ground to stand on because they're all Christians, so their differences are bridgeable and not, in the end, a very big deal, so why fight too hard over it? But keep in mind that generous interfaith impulse is a feeling not necessarily reciprocated by the theocrats, who, as Randall Terry famously put it, "don't want pluralism." Fact is, the theocrats would lump followers of the so-called "mainstream" churches into the secular horde--and headed for Hell as surely as any other heathen.

In his annotation on the State of the Union for the Atlantic, James Fallows noted the presence of coded religious language that would speak directly to the theocrats in Bush's audience while zooming right over the heads of secular listeners. Theocrats, dominionists, call 'em what you will, count on the fact that the great secular unwashed (co-religionists of other denominations included) doesn't understand their language. And if the great secular unwashed doesn't understand the language, they can't know they're in a fight--and may not know until it's mostly over. "The Despoiling of America," even though it has some faults, helps with the translation.

[Gordon25]

60. With prior apologies for a bad pun...

...your last two posts, Axel, would lead me to believe I have been preaching to the already converted here. Thanks for starting the thread. It is a very important subject.

A final thought here. It seems to me all monotheistic religions are essentially religions of empire because they lay claim to an exclusive truth about the universe and men's place in it. As such, most such religions carry with them an admonition to spread the faith as far and wide as possible with the end goal being ultimately the conversion of the entire world. A second effect of the monotheistic imagined possession of the "one truth" is that it has an unfortunate tendency to turn its adherents into true believers for whom the end of spreading the faith justifies all means. Within the broad framework of Christianity, there is a spectrum of such "one truth-itis", from very open, tolerant, inclusive and accepting congregations, to those who stridently cry their access to the "one truth" and who perceive those who disagree - or even for those who simply fail to agree - as enemies. You are either with us or you are with our enemies. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, the very qualities of openess, tolerance, inclusivity, and acceptance which define the more mainstream congregations, do not fit them well to stand up publicly and aggressively criticize or repudiate the more True Beliverish congregations on their fringes. And yet our best hope is for them to do exactly that; to come to understand that their religion has been hijacked by the True Believers on its fringes and is well on its way to being turned into the foundation for a world wide theocratic empire.

Personally, I tend to agree with the old Druidic traditions that all sincere prayers from the heart go to the same place, and that the exploitation of others' spiritual beliefs for personal power or political ends is the prime definition of sacrilege.

Here's to regime change in Washington D.C. and the expulsion of the theocrats from the halls of power.

Gordon25

[struggle4progress]

59. The political problem here ...

is how to explain this without sounding like a lunatic and without sounding anti-religious.

[tjwash]

63. My favorite passage from the bible is Mark 10:21...

...where Jesus tells a rich man that if he wants to follow God he must sell everything he owns and give it to the poor.

Can anyone see smirky here doing that anytime soon?

[Wapsie B]

64. To put it simply,

just because the Christian Coalition is declining in power these days doesn't mean these people are going away. They're just in different groups now. The CC was so visible. There are so many other orgs out there that hide under the cover of darkness that will do much more damage. These people have tasted power. They're not giving up.