Be Afraid, Be Very, Very Afraid…
May 2nd, 2005 | by Jet Netwal |I have been studying up on a new word I learned recently. The amount of information surrounding this word, and its ability to fill in some sizable gaps is amazing.
The word is Dominion.
Dominionism is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.” To the ordinary Christian believer such as myself, the doctrines of Dominionism are pretty scary. I imagine most Americans would think so. Frederick Clarkson wrote in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” The true motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.”
Dominionism got organized and started building some steam about 25 years ago. Billy Graham exhorted viewers April 29, 1985 on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club that the"… time has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting organized corporately….I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government. I think if we leave it to the other side we’re going to be lost. I would like to see every true believer involved in politics in some way shape or form."
A new world was coming. To help the transition along, Pat Robertson, along with other pastors, evangelists and churchmen, founded schools, universities and colleges throughout the United States to train “Christians” how to run for office, how to win, and how to manage the affairs of government after they gained office. To get an idea of how successful the plan was, Robertson’s Regent University now has a $100 million endowment. After watching the Dominionists takeover the Republican Party and observing their ruthless methods, it is indeed apparent that Machiavellian principles are the fuel running their “How to Manual.”
Starting with a class of only twelve in 1985, Robertson began his Journalism Department at CBN University where 800 other graduate students were earning Master degrees in a fully accredited institution. Later Robertson changed the name of CBN University to “Regent University”—based on Dominionism’s teaching that the national government of America and governments of the world will be ruled by Dominionists, who will act as regents on an interim basis, that is, until the true King—Jesus Christ—will return to earth again and gratefully accept His Kingdom from the hands of His faithful regents. — Katherine Yurica
Approximately 35 million Americans subscribe to Dominionism. The TV evangelists and the churches have repetitiously indoctrinated the illusion of an outside enemy who is attacking Christianity very successfully, to the point these millions of members believe in an imaginary evil secular society that is part of a vast anti-Christian conspiracy.
Dominionism has roots it the Gospels, turning the concept of the invisible and spiritual “Kingdom of God” into a literal one; a political empire that could be taken by force. First stop, USA. That pesky original message of Jesus, you know, the one that said “My kingdom is not of this world,” needs not apply. These guys have a higher purpose: To boldly go (according to a Gospel designed to inspire), into the political arena and execute world domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for his earthly rule by his faithful “regents.”
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain? Same thing we do every night, Jesus, TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"
Thinking, nah, never happen? Think Jim Jones, who proved that the religious would follow. Way.Too.Far. That’s a fact worthy of note by even the foggiest of politically minded preachers.
Let’s talk courts, shall we?
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court wrote in 2002, the Bible teaches and Christians believe “… that government …derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword…”
The neo-conservatives created a judicial rule that requires a judge to determine the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. Scalia describes it, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead…It means today not what current society…thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” Think about it. He’s saying that once the original thinking is determined, the constitution becomes enforceable as a document that is bound by that particular time frame.
What is really scary here is that so-called “crimes” like adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness are territories the Dominionists would like see covered under the death penalty. This is why the entire judicial make up is so crucial to Dominionists, and they are very close to achieving this frightening goal. All they need to do is to appoint a majority of judges who will adhere to the “dead Constitution” construction rule of Scalia. When the Dominionist’s control the judiciary—that judiciary can roll back America’s body of legal jurisprudence to a century or more ago.
All a willing Dominionist Republican controlled congress need do to extend the death penalty to those people who practice witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, heresy, etcetera, is to find those particular death penalty laws existing as of November 3, 1791, and re-instate them. No revolution is required. That’s why the battle over Bush’s judicial appointments is so crucial to the future of the America we know and love. And that’s why the clock is running out on freedom loving Americans.
Freedom is under siege. There is only one free major political party still left in America. I know the Democrats look chaotic, unfocused and generally unsmooth and thank God, unprogramed. Make no mistake, these plain ordinary citizens are holding the candles that together form the great torch of liberty. For all their faults, they love America and they love freedom and they love the Bill of Rights. America’s independents, its true Conservatives, its sensible Republicans, and its Libertarians must join hands together with the homely Democrats and take back America for all Americans. — Katherine Yurica
There’s a great deal of information on this topic at Theocracy Watch, a public information project that tracks and documents the Religious Right. Regardless of your political or religious affiliation, you need to understand what is really being said and why. Please take a moment to envision how the country you love could be changed. If 35 million decide the fate of the nation with them as the exalted, we will be no better that Apartheid South Africa.
Think about the political situation of today. Think about who is where, and what they are saying.
Oh, yeah. By the way, don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
31 Responses to “Be Afraid, Be Very, Very Afraid…”
By The Bastard on May 3, 2005 | Reply
There is an excellent article about this subject at the NYT’s called The Constitution in Exile, it is about the battle over who controls the courts and how each Party plays into the control of the courts. Yeah, your right, it’s a revolution without any shots being fired. It always amazed me that the minority ruled in Iraq. How could that be? How could a minority gain control? Well the answers are right in front of us, it’s being played out in front of us. And they just keep telling everyone it’s not true until one day you wake up to the Morality Police knocking on your door. A little paraniod you say? I say “you betcha!”
By tomharper on May 3, 2005 | Reply
God, what a post! This information needs to be spread as widely as possible. Rolling Stone had a recent article about the Dominionists, and Brother Kenya also did a recent post about them. If the mass “media” really were liberal (or even concerned with real news instead of just gossip and entertainment), this story would be repeated endlessly, everywhere.
I don’t know what the US population is, but I guess roughly one out of ten Americans is a Dominionist. That’s a lot of them, but they’re still a minority. It may all come down to that line by the Doors: “They’ve got the guns but we’ve got the numbers.”
By Craig R. Harmon on May 3, 2005 | Reply
There’s also an excellent article about this subject here.
I herein propose to show that both the number and the influence of genuine theocrats has been greatly exagerated.
First of all, to suppose that there are anything like 35 million American Christians who espouse capital punishment for homosexuals, blasphemers, an wiccans is beyond credibility. To make such a supposition is to fall into the very trap that Kurtz warns against, namely, quoting Clarkson, then citing Christians’ determination to play a role in the political process and then making no attempt to show that Billy Graham, for example, is ideologically aligned with Clarkson, let alone that 35 million Conservative Christians, who have become active in the political sphere since that time, are. It is not enough to note the two occurrences in order to prove that the two are ideologically identical. Even noting similar or identical language is not sufficient. One must actually show that Graham and 35 million Conservative Christians actually mean the same thing by their use of language as Clarkson does by his. It would be a good start to show that 35 million Conservative Christians favor executing homosexuals. I doubt that even Clarkson would be up to that challenge.
Second, how should the Constitution be understood? Here is an analogy. How should a Shakespearean play be understood, according to contemporary playright’s standards? I mean, West Side Story is an interesting retelling of Romeo and Juliet but that does not mean that it is the difinitive lense through which Shakespeare’s version is to be understood. Does it not make more sense to obtain an annotated copy, one where antequated words and words that meant distinctly different things when Shakespeare wrote them than they do today are defined and explained? Why should the Constitution be understood in the former manner?
Along these lines, I contend that Antonin Scalia is not a dominionist. In the recent ruling, Roper V. Simmons, not surprisingly, Scalia dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was not, however, based upon the 1791 application of ‘cruel and unusual’ which would permit the execution of seven year olds. Rather, he pointed to past decisions of the court and the common definition of ‘consensus’, among other things. He does deride the majority for eschewing the meaning of the eighth amendment to the framers but he does not mean that the standards for imposing capital punishment that were in use at the time that the Bill of Rights was passed should be applied today.
Third, it is true that Christians believe that Government derives its authority from God. The Bible says as much. To suppose that that means that the Government needs to be run by Christians according to Biblical Laws and prinicples is to err, however. When Paul wrote Romans 13:1-5:
“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.“,
Rome was the Governing power at that time and it was decidedly not a Christian Government nor was it run according to Biblical Laws or Principles. It was a ruthless military empire. Nevertheless, it was to be obeyed by Christians to the extent that one could do so without actually breaking God’s Laws. What was meant was that, when the Government, no matter by whom it was ruled or how, punished evildoers, it did so as the instrument of God. When it rewarded or praised those who do good, it did so as the instrument of God. That is a far cry from insisting that homosexuals and witches be stoned. To suppose that, therefore, the Government or the courts must be run by Christians according to Biblical Laws is erroneous and the vast majority of Christians know it. They may like the idea of Christians in Government, in fact, the evidence is that they do but that does not prevent them from criticizing their Christian leaders. Nor does it prevent them from voting out of office Christian leaders and replacing them with even non-Christian leaders if they believe that they are the better choice.
Fifth, the post sends us to Theocracy Watch. There an error of definition is made towards the very beginning. There is found the following: “Theocracy is the civil rule of God, or the belief in government by divine guidance.” The first part of this definition is accurate. The error is in the second part. While Theocracy is government by divine guidance, it is not the sort of divine guidance that Bush means when he talks about believing that he is guided by God. Israel, in the desert, was a theocracy. God spoke directly to Moses. Moses heard God’s voice; Bush does not, nor has he claimed to. Moses spoke authoritatively for God. God said to Moses, “Tell my people…” and Moses told them; this is not the way Bush operates. When Israel ignored Moses’ voice they were struck down by God; when Americans ignore Bush’s voice, no one is struck down nor is there any evidence that Bush expects them to be.
The definition evinces an overgeneralization and misapplication of the concept of theocracy and so many may be misled into believing that Bush & Co. are theocrats and that there are some 35 million other theocrats out there just waiting to pounce upon poor, unsuspecting, future victims of Apartheid. Congressmen are quoted using language that sounds just like that which I used to describe the relationship between God and Moses. However, the vast majority, when they talk of being guided by God don’t actually mean that there is a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire, by night going before them. They mean that God uses people and incidents and, yes, even the Bible, to bring them to where they are today. They do not insist that everyone else believe what they believe or do what they do and they certainly do not insist that, if others don’t do what they say, that those who disobey will by struck down by God. That is a theocracy. There are those that do say that…they are called the lunatic fringe (with the emphasis upon ‘lunitic’) for a reason.
In this vein, when Tom DeLay said, “He [God] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me.” I’m sure he means it. He believes that certain things are right (think the free expression of religion, for instance), which things he will work to promote and protect, and certain things are wrong (think same-gender marriage and abortion on demand), which things he will work to block or limit. Sounds scary, maybe, but when was the last time that he was seen carrying around tablets of stone demanding that every American obey or he would call down the wrath of God? Instead he works through a political process that insures that a plurality of ideas are heard and given equal weight in the minds of his fellow legislators and encourages the implementation of the will of those whom they represent (i. e., the electorate, not God).
Tom DeLay can be wrong. He can misread the will of God. He admits as much when he says “He (God) is training me” by which he can only mean that he is not done with his training yet. Moses, on the other hand could not be wrong about what God’s will was. He didn’t always do as he was told but there was never any doubt as to what he’d been told.
For these reasons, I believe that the number and the influence of genuine theocrats has been greatly exagerated.
Here endeth the Sermon.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Oops. In numbering the points above, I skipped fourth and went on to fifth. There are only four distinct points. Please renumber accordingly.
By pia on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Oh god, Jet, incredible post.
Think Craig the point is that Tom Delay thinks he governs by “divine intervention.”
As the resident Jew on Bring It On! I think the question isn’t whether Delay (or anybody) walks around with a tablet of stone or not, but the possiblilities that could happen.
See Craig as a Christian who believes in the above points, you can only win.
I spent my childhood being taught that my family had to flee almost every country we ever settled in–from the beginning of time-because of our religion. It wasn’t a lecture that my father gave.
It was just stories my grandparents didn’t tell about their childhoods.
I respect you a lot Craig, but I think that I have every reason to be scared. Very scared.
By The Bastard on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Craig,
You said, “God spoke directly to Moses. Moses heard God’s voice; Bush does not, nor has he claimed to.” But Bush wasn’t listening.
In no way do I compare the works of George W. Bush to the following, but the language and rhetoric of justification of one’s works by faith in God is strikingly similar:
I could certainly find many more examples given the time. However, this ought to do for now. I know this will bring about certain outrage from some on the right. And in no way am I comparing Hitler and Milosevic to Bush (and allow me to point out that Bush resorted to using images of Adolf Hitler alongside images of Howard Dean and Al Gore while attacking his opponents in a campaign sponsored web ad).
Hitler and Milosevic were evil doers.. eh, I mean murderous dictators. Bush, rather, is just a poor president who squandered a huge surplus, and took us to war under false pretenses. Saying that, the rhetoric of leaders who maintain that God speaks through them, or that they are carrying out the work of God is highly similar. And whether it comes from a dictator or a bad president, it is rhetoric that ought to have no place in politics. Let priests, reverends, rabbi’s, preachers and clerics tell people how to go about doing God’s work. The president of the United States should steer clear of such rhetoric.
By pia on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Please Bastard I’m scared enough! No more examples–oh Bring It On!
We need to be scared out of our minds–I’m sending this to everybody I ever met practically
By Andrew on May 3, 2005 | Reply
As a politically active evangelical, I would like to ask why it is wrong for us to be organized? The left most certainly is. The abortion industry is quite organized. Why must evangelical Christians be the only ones to keep our mouths shut?
We study history, and we see what happens to us when our rights are not protected. We also know that we cannot depend on anybody else to protect those rights. Most of us have no desire to “take over the country”, we simply wish to retain the freedom to worship as we please…a freedom that we see being eroded with every ACLU lawsuit at Christmastime.
By chris on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Great post Jet! These are the people who scare me, they are the ones who want to ruin my American, my American that my fore fathers paid for in blood.
They want to destroy every reason why I love this great nation of mine.
Here is another great article on the dominionist and my take.
By Hammertime on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Wow. This is, by far, the most moonbattery I have ever seen here. I thought I preempted this in the last post?
Obviously no one looks at my links, even if it isn’t on my blog. I’ll cut and paste for you, then:
Dominionist Domination
The Left runs with a wild theory.
What is the real agenda of the religious far Right? I’ll tell you what it is. These nuts want to take over the federal government and suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing. They want to reestablish slavery. They want to reduce women to near-slavery by making them property, first of their fathers, and then of their husbands. They want to execute anyone found guilty of pre-martial, extramaritial, or homosexual sex. They want to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft.
But aren’t extremists like this far from political power? On the contrary, the political and religious movement called “Dominionism” has gained control of the Republican party, and taken over Congress and the White House as well. Once they take over the judiciary, the conversion of America to a theocracy will be sealed. The Dominionists are very close to achieving their goal. Once they have the courts in their hands, a willing Dominionist Republican-controlled Congress can simply extend the death penalty to witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and heresy. The courts will uphold all this once conservatives are in control, since Scalia himself appears to be a Dominionist.
Shocking as it seems, Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican party, and the apparatus of government throughout the United States. Yet Dominionists continue to operate in secrecy. It is estimated that 35 million Americans who call themselves Christian adhere to Dominionism, although most of them are unaware of the true nature of their own beliefs and goals. Dominionism has met its timetable for the complete takeover of the American government. It would be a mistake, by the way, to think of Dominionists as fundamentalist Protestants alone. Dominionism has stealthily swept over America, incorporating conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians within its ranks. And of course, Dominionists are allied with the neoconservative followers of the political philosopher, Leo Strauss. The quest of these neoconservatives for power and world domination is a self-conscious program of pure, unmitigated evil.
You don’t believe me? Well, consider the fact that on December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as president of the Christian Coalition. Religious conservatives understood very well that Robertson had stepped aside to allow the new president of the United States to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church. Robertson openly revealed at least a portion of his Dominionist plans on The 700 Club on May 13, 1986, when he clearly stated: “We can change the government, we can change the court systems, we can change the poverty problem, we can change education…We can make a difference.”
For Dominionists, possibly the single-most-important event of the last half of the 20th century occurred when Jim Jones proved that religious people would follow a leader, even to their deaths. Lest we all end up like the followers of Jim Jones, it’s time for Americans to take a leaf from those rare, brave souls, like George Soros. Following Soros, we’ve got to stand up to the Dominionist menace. There is an infection, a religious and political pathology that has corrupted our churches. Those we have trusted have embraced evil. Let us pray that Americans will go to the voting booth and finally free this country from the Republican Dominionist menace.
But They’re Serious
O.K., it’s me again. I’m back from the fever swamps of the Left, which I’ve been exploring ever since I discovered a wild conspiracy theory about conservative Christians in the latest cover story of Harper’s Magazine. You want political paranoia? You want guilt by association? You want flat-out looniness? Well, Joe McCarthy’s got nothing on the good liberal folks who are warning us about a takeover by “Dominionist” Christians. What you’ve just read is a composite I’ve created (often word for word) by drawing on a couple of web-sites I’ll link you to in a moment. The disturbing thing is that this sort of conspiratorial nonsense is being taken seriously by real media and political players.
There is, in fact, a fringe Christian group of “Dominionists” or “Reconstructionists,” who really would like to see an American theocracy, and a return to the death penalty for blasphemy, adultery, sodomy, and witchcraft. The dystopian political program of this utterly marginal, extremist sect has absolutely no traction with anyone of significance. But that hasn’t stopped conspiracy mongers on the Left from imagining a murderous Christian plot to destroy America. I’ve found a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at religioustolerance.org. This description includes the claim that Dominionists “advocate genocide for followers of minority groups and non-conforming members of their own religion.” I’m not sure this is accurate, even for the minuscule number of actual Dominionists. But the disturbing thing is the way this and other Left-leaning sites use logical sleight-of-hand to tar ordinary evangelicals with the madcap musings of a few fevered “Dominionists.”
You can see the basic technique of the conspiracy mongers in this 1994 report on the Dominionists for Public Eye Magazine. All you have to do is quote a fringe Dominionist desperate to prove that his radical ideas are catching on. Dominionists have a long-term political strategy to establish a full-blown American theocracy based on Old Testament law. And look! Some other Christians want to participate in the political process, too. They even believe in developing a long-term political strategy! Ah ha! That must mean that, even though they are “unaware of the original source of their ideas,” conservative Christians are in fact under the influence of authentic Dominionists. Voila. By quoting a pathetic Dominionist extremist’s desperate efforts to prove his own influence, clever liberals can now argue that the ultimate goal of all conservative Christians is the re-institution of slavery, and execution for blasphemers and witches.
This theory reminds me of the poor kid who thought he’d caused the great New York City blackout of 1965 because he happened to throw a rock at a transformer the moment the lights went out. Conservative Christians didn’t turn to politics because they were egged on by wild-eyed Dominionists. They were goaded into defensive action by the post-sixties secularist challenge to their way of life. Christians would have taken up politics whether a silly Dominionist fringe existed or not. In fact, Dominionism itself is nothing but a hapless and hopeless response to the secular social changes of the past forty years. But the Left has decided that it’s in their interest to buy into the Dominionists’ own bogus and pathetic claims of influence — and to exaggerate even those bogus claims beyond recognition.
The champion of this approach appears to be Kathryn Yurica, whose piece, “The Despoiling of America,” was the source for much of the account at the beginning of this piece. (Unlike religoustolerance.org, Yurica does not use the word “genocide” and does not talk about re-instituting slavery. She speaks only of extending the death penalty to things like adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft, effeminateness, and heresy.) Yurica’s article is so wild-eyed and strange that it would barely be worth mentioning, were Yurica not a featured speaker at a recent conference called, “Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right.” That conference, held this past weekend, was supported by the National Council of Churches, People for the American Way, The Nation, The Village Voice, and United Americans for Separation of Church and State. (You can read a Washington Times report on the conference here.)
I noted last week that Dominionist conspiracy theory broke into the mainstream with the latest cover story of Harper’s Magazine. (Yurica herself now supplements her own account of the Dominionist conspiracy with a link to one of those Harper’s articles.)
The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it’s downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper’s cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside “the old polite rules of democracy.” So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.
In the wake of their big New York City conference, we’ll see what, if anything, The Nation, The Village Voice, and People for the American Way actually do with this newly fashionable Dominionist conspiracy theory. I hope a little sunlight suffices to put a stop to these ill-advised attack on conservative Christians. I guess we’ll soon enough learn what the real agenda of the irreligious far Left actually is.
(swiped from National Review. You have a link here already to them.)
Jet, you can keep your tin foil hat AND your Kool-aid. Good grief, I thought better of you all.
By Dr. Forbush on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Excellent post Jet!
Craig, let us imagine that the threat of the religious right is exaggerated. That would imply that we should relax our guard and not worry about how much power they acquire. However, by relaxing our guard we allow them to acquire more power. Hence we should be more vigilant than necessary in order to protect our society. There are always going to be those who are not willing to stand up to protect our society and we need to work over time to cover for them.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
George Washington (1732 - 1799)
By tomharper on May 3, 2005 | Reply
OK, maybe this is a dumb question, but I just have to ask (Andrew, several comments up):
How exactly are Christians’ rights being threatened? I know they use this rhetoric all the time, but I can’t see anything resembling threats or persecution directed at Christians. I agree the ACLU goes overboard trying to ban Christmas and Hannukah (sp?) decorations, but still, threats and persecution? If anyone has specific information about Christians being discriminated against or having any of their rights threatened, I’d like to hear it.
By The Cranky Liberal on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Hammer I while it may be overstated, I know people who fit the bill. You can callit paranoia - thats fine. You can say drink the kool-aid more power to you my brother, but when you deny it exists, well your deluded yourself. Go read some of the books by the Dominionist yourself. Is it 35 million people? Nope. Does it need to be? Nope. All it takes is a few in the right spot and enough people who don’t really follow the whole agenda, but just think those guys are realy nice and friendly.
Andrew - your allowed to organize just like us foks on the “left” do, you have ever right. And we have every right to look at some of the ideas your espouse and antithetical to our beliefs, even our religious beliefs. You can organize, you can vote - so can we. You have your agenda, we have ours. We just want to make people aware of what the costs of yours might be. Please show me where your right to worship has been taken away? Any churchs closed down? Anyone told they couldn’t pray at home? Your right to worship isn’t under attack. Everyone elses right NOT to partake in your worship is the issue.
Craig, do you really think that the Constitution should only be interpreted the way a bunch of pretty smart but hardly omniscient white men from the late 18th Century thought? There is nothing that says “Hey we have all the answers and you have to always think of life this way.” We can’t even comapre baseball players through the generation, how the hell can we expect to always view modern life through the lens of 2 centuries?
By Jay on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Very interesting post. I agree with Scalia!
By Hammertime on May 3, 2005 | Reply
That’s a scare tactic, CL, that can be used to justify any rant against any group that might be sympathetic to any part of some extremist group’s ideas.
Allow me to demonstrate:
“Now while it may be overstated, I know people who fit the NAMBLA bill. You can call it paranoia - thats fine. You can say drink the kool-aid more power to you my brother, but when you deny it exists, well your deluded yourself. Go read some of the books by NAMBLA yourself. Is it 35 million people? Nope. Does it need to be? Nope. All it takes is a few in the right spot and enough people who don’t really follow the whole agenda, but just think those guys are realy nice and friendly. We need to watch out for these homsexuals!”
Do I deny Dominionists exist? No. Do I think they are irrelevant? Definitely. Any clear thinking person should. Neo-Nazis are anti-abortion. Does that mean the Right would back their candidates? Come on.
By Jet on May 3, 2005 | Reply
The following are excerpts from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” (Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, full bio here:) http://www.freecongress.org/about/pweyrich.asp
“There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture..
“Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions..
“We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
“We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime. “We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths.
“We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement.
“We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people.. We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms..”
This, from a founder of The Heritage Foundation, a man who has submitted editorials to the The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist and The Wall Street Journal? Y’all can keep your Kool-aid.
By Dr. Forbush on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Hammer,
Let me get this straight. You believe that the small number of NAMBLA members is a problem, but the much larger number of Dominionists placed in the right places isn’t a problem?
But the truth is that we have Dominionists in the administration and the Christian Right. But you haven’t name a NAMBLA member of equal power anywhere.
It’s sounds to me like you are afraid of NAMBLA but you believe that the Dominionists are your friend so you don’t care. Well, Dominionists are not the friend of any Freedom and Liberty loving American.
By The Cranky Liberal on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Well I get what your saying about NAMBLA, though by using that group as your counter, its a nice way to insuate them as a “lefty” group which they are not. Freaks come in all political stripes. I’m sure there are a few Democrat dominionist also, though that number would be small.
I understand the “scare” tactic concept, we know it very well on this side. Its the one that always paints us as baby killing murders who hate America, burn flags, and want to promote the homosexula agenda. We hear that “scare tactic” all the timeto push for things like Consitutional Amendments against things the people doing the scaring don’t like. We have learned to understand Willie Horton style scare tactics, weak on terror scare tactics and all sorts of scare tactics.
Funny though, when you marry the agenda ofthe people doing the scaring with the ideas of dominion, it doesn’t seem all that far fetched. Maybe not as extreme as painted here, but not “crazy” or “paranoid” and certainly not “foil-hat”
By sally on May 3, 2005 | Reply
Our version of Wahhabism?
The same drive to a less secular, more traditional world…
By JollyRoger on May 4, 2005 | Reply
The thing that bothers me the most is that most Dominionist leaders would have to give up their positions, if they really subscribed to what they claim to believe, since there seem to be a huge number of adulterers, thieves, and swindlers among them.
They apparently believe that they have some Divine dispensation to do whatever they want to do-in that regard, they resemble their followers a lot.
How can you reason with The Chosen Ones? They are incapable of wrong. Only YOU are.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
Pia, if Dominionists gain power no one wins, least of all you…but neither do I and neither do the vast majority of Conservative Christians who do not espouse Dominionist doctrine. My comment was not intended to say they do not exist, it was intended, mostly, to say that the 35 million number is absurd. It was intended to say that, just because people in power say things that sound like they are Dominionists does not mean that they are and to show that there are reasons for believing that they are not Dominionists. I, obviously, don’t have the power to stop you from being afraid. Given your background, some level of vigilance is logical and necessary. I only wished to temper some of the more unnecesary, as I view it, fearmongering evident in the post.
Bastard, I really can’t think (migraine and all) how to respond. If my original comment fails to convince, I have no hope to convince you in my current condition and probably not even if I was at my best. Conspiracy theories are, by nature, impossible to defuse entirely. Some people will believe anything. I don’t mean to demean you for believing what you do, I can only say that, no matter what I say, you will continue to believe what you do. All the more power to you, man.
Cranky, yes, I do think that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written. Words written on parchment have no majical qualities, they mean what they mean when they were written. Interpretation is impossible otherwise. How that original meaning get’s applied to conditions and situations that were unforeseeable by the author(s) is the very reason that we have judges but judges don’t get to be creative with the meaning of the text. It means what it means.
That is not to say that it can’t be changed when that is deemed necessary. There is a mechanism for that. It is rightly very difficult to do but if the meaning of the original document becomes unworkable in a free State, then it must be changed with as much wisdom and care as we can muster. That’s the best that I can do.
Dr. Forbush, I think that I responded to your point above. Sorry, I’m not at my best tonight.
By The Bastard on May 4, 2005 | Reply
Craig,
I don’t think I ever stated that I believe or don’t believe in this “conspiracy”. I was simply pointing out that your response was inaccurate and that Bush had in fact stated that Jesus speaks to him.
I’m sure it’s just the headache talking you didn’t mean what you said. Why if you can’t convince someone right away is it a lost cause? Is that the “instant gratification of America” showing through?
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
No, it just shows how poorly I think when I can’t think for all the things that are wracking my body at the moment. Again, I submit to you that, when Bush says that Jesus speaks to him, he means something different than, say, Moses experienced and he really does not mean to say that he (Bush) is Jesus’ inerrant spokesperson.
Instant gratification…possible. I really do think, though, that if a person really does believe that 35 million people in America want to execute homosexuals, wiccans, adulterers and indeed anyone who engages in extra-marital sex, etc., that there is nothing that I, or anyone else will be able to say to change their minds.
By The Bastard on May 4, 2005 | Reply
Craig,
Well, like I said I never implied I believed in the conspiracy. But I am curious how you came to the conclusion of what Bush means when he says that God has spoken to him. Is it to far fetched to think that your leader of the free world is hearing voices?
Anyway here is the face of Christian Dominion. And wouldn’t you know it. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey have both been keynote speakers at these weekend Bible humps.
And geez wouldn’t you know it Tom thinks God speaks to him too.
By JollyRoger on May 4, 2005 | Reply
I wonder why God tells them to steal? I thought that was a no-no?
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
Because people who hear voices are either in mental hospitals or, more often, wandering city streets babbling to the air…often pushing shopping carts full of junk, you know? They don’t tend to be high-functioning people. Besides, he has been interviewed on numerous occasions concerning his relationship with God, what he means when he says he is guided by God, etc.
About the link, maybe I missed something but what is it exactly that ties any of those people to Dominionism a la Clarkson? I mean, just because a person sees the world (Worldview) in a way that is significantly different from secularists does not mean s/he wants to execute unbelievers, or anyone else. The very fact that a person believes in a personal God who interacts with his creation assures that s/he will see the world in a way that is significantly different from someone who thinks that there is no God, that whatever God may exist has no active role in his creation, or is simply agnostic on the question of God’s existence. Heck, I view the world in a significantly different way than secularists. How do I go about proving that I am not a Dominionist?
Jolly, I’m sorry, what are you talking about? Who’s stealing what?
By Hammertime on May 4, 2005 | Reply
Doc,
I was using Cranky’s quote to illustrate a point. I think that NAMBLA is dangerous to boys, not to the country. They are no more likely to gain control of the US than Dominionists.
Craig,
Well said.
Cranky,
35 million who want to execute adulters? That IS tin foil hat!
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
To continue from the first paragraph in my previous comment. Another thing about people who actually hear voices, they tend not to go unnoticed. Does anyone really suppose that a Schizophrenic could succeed at Harvard, make Scull and Bones, gain the confidence required to test pilot jet planes, be elected Governor of Texas and elected at least once to the Presidency of the United States without anyone noticing anything, um, odd. With the level of political animosity in this country and the proficiency of opponent researchists can you possibly suppose that a stay in a psychiatric ward and continuing psychiatric treatment could possibly have gone unnoticed? Or Frist? or any of the other ‘Dominionists’ that are supposeed to be in power today? It’s just not credible.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
The problem with trying to dispel conspiracy theories rests in this: how does one go about proving to someone willing to believe such things that someone is not, say, a Dominionist? Negatives are remarkably resistant to proof. I’ve done my best.
By The Bastard on May 4, 2005 | Reply
But Craig, the funny thing about conspiracies is that you haven’t said one thing based on hard core fact either. You see conspiracies exist because of a lack of fact and are laced with (cough) educated opinions. I do know “fact” that 30% of the vote for Bush was manipulated by the Christian right that has a deeply entrenched agenda to club everyone over the head with their Bibles. Is it wrong to be worried and to want to put some sort of spotlight on that fact. These people can’t stand the constitution, it stands in the way of their teachings but yet Bush and Co. are all to willing to accept advice and take money from these groups. The closed door meetings between the FRC and Frist/DeLay in March is a perfect example. Which is funny because they openly admit to taking advice from a Christian organization which should void their tax exemption, but leave that to a separate post.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 4, 2005 | Reply
No, you’re right about lack of facts. That is why I have depended upon the best logical arguments I could muster. I hereby say ‘Uncle!’ I am done with this thread. I leave the rest of you to it.