Bring It On!

Truth or Consequences

May 19th, 2005 | by Jet Netwal |

The last post I put up here, on Dominionism, generated a number of comments. Specifically, the figure of 35 million Dominionists was challenged. What I wanted to convey was that 35 million people are Dominion influenced, and most of them are quite fervent about their beliefs. People who are swayed to that degree are functioning as Dominionists, whether they accept the title or not.

Let’s take a little quiz, shall we?

True or False:

1) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when espoused by scientists and universities.

2) People are poor because they have not been "born again".

3) Wealth is a sign that one is following the will of God.

4) Mental illness is a sign that the mind has been devoured by Satan

5) Drug and alcohol addictions can only be cured by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior

6) Believing in "the truth" means knowing anyone who believes differently is wrong and condemned to hell for eternity.

7) True believers have divine authority to subvert, by any means, the government in order to create a theocracy based on "the truth".

Did you answer true to any of these? Did you answer true to most, or all of them? Congratulations, and welcome to the 35 Million Club!

My, THAT was fun. Anybody up for another?

True of False:

The Bible says:

1) But for this very reason–adding, on your part, all earnestness– along with your faith, manifest also a noble character: along with a noble character, knowledge;

2) Whoever mocks the poor reproaches his Maker. He who is glad at calamity shall not be unpunished.

3) For we brought nothing into the world, and we certainly can’t carry anything out.

4) Open your mouth for the mute, in the cause of all who are left desolate.

5) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

6) For those who lead this people lead them astray; and those who are led by them are destroyed.

7) He said, "Watch out that you don’t get led astray, for many will come in my name, saying,’ I am he,’ and,’The time is at hand.’ Therefore don’t follow them.

Did you answer true to any of these? Did you answer true to all of them? Congratulations, and welcome to the Rest of the Christian World. (Here’s your answer key: 2 Peter 1:5, Proverbs 17:5, Timothy 6:7, Proverbs 31:8, Psalms 82:3, Isaiah 9:16, Luke 21:8)

You see, the chief problem here is that God is no longer in the discussion. When you claim to KNOW all, and all others are damned, you tend to get a little sloppy about the details. There’s a power mindset that is inherently against the integrity of faith. God isn’t about taking over countries or changing political landscapes. God is not going to pat you on the head for subverting a nation and creating more poor, needy and afflicted people while cementing power for yourself. God is all about honesty, humility, and self sacrifice.

God is not about HERE!

Sure, this is the arena where you get an opportunity for self discovery. But face it, people, God has zero interest in the American political landscape. He will, however, examine your motives fairly closely. Did you help the poor like he asked? Did you speak up for the afflicted? Did you give your wealth or hoard it? If you gave, did you pick and choose who would receive it, or did you care for all the needy, even the distasteful ones? (We are all sinners to God. He doesn’t cherry pick the "good" sinners.) Did you use your words wisely, or did you use them to control, coerce or manipulate less intelligent people? Do you teach that the very people God entrusted into our care are, for whatever reason, not our responsibility?

The religious right of twenty-first century America is anti-American, inherently violent, and a cruel, tyrannical, punitive, force of death and destruction. In its mindset, adult human lives do not matter because the human condition itself is inherently evil resulting in eternal and everlasting punishment in hell unless its members are redeemed in a prescribed manner by the fundamentalist God/man/savior, Jesus Christ. Moreover, with an embarrassingly adolescent flamboyance, Dominionists shamelessly rape, pillage, and desecrate the earth because in the first place, their Bible has given them authority over all things human and in the second place, their “imminent” apocalyptic rapture, transporting them from the human “veil of tears” to live happily ever after in heaven, entitles them to do so. Meanwhile, we the unredeemed, the unbelievers, the poor, the feminists, the gay and lesbian, the disabled, the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, and those who are conscientiously following divergent spiritual paths of their choice, are suffering in the wake of Christian fundamentalism’s devastation of the economy, the earth, and the human race. But this is what we deserve for not becoming born-again devotees of their Jesus. And we deserve even worse—to burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed. — Carolyn Baker

Strong words? Some might think so, but this woman grew up in a Christian fundamentalist family. Where I come from , that entitles her to speak. What she has to say is downright frightening. 

Wanton power lust is not moral. 51% is not a mandate; neither are the current administration approval ratings.

Tell you what. Hit this link, and type in the word POOR in the search box. Uh huh. Now that, my friends, is a moral mandate.

  1. 27 Responses to “Truth or Consequences”

  2. By Joseph (OK Democrat) on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    God is here (points) in our hearts and minds. He is real but he is not sitting somewhere deciding which politicians and policies to support. He is sitting, hoping and yes, praying that we will somehow find a way to put the lust for power out of our heads. This may never be truly possible but some have come closer than others. George Washington turned down the throne, which the United States offered him after he saved our land from tyranny. Would Bush do the same? It is doubtful. He won’t even admit to wrongdoing to save face in the world eye, much less do anything to actually prove that we are still a Democracy. I fear that our Republic is in peril, more grave than ever since the Civil War. We are involved in a new civil war, an UN civil war, one that will have no winners, only losers. The more we fight one-party rule, the more the majority strangles our ability to do so. The harder we try, the more damage they reap. If something doesn’t change, we will be a Republic in name alone. This is the goal of the religious right and its allies. This is the true meaning and goal of dominionists.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Jet,

    As for your first set of statements:

    1) Actually, I do think that ONLY a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing, whether espoused by Scientists or Universities or Churches. In fact, I would guess that, as stated, most Americans, Christians or not would answer yes to this one simply because “A little knowlege is a dangerous thing” is so much of an aphorism. I see no connection whatsoever to this statement and any kind of Christian faith. I’m not sure what you are driving at here. Obviously, regardless of the field of knowledge, the more knowledge, the better. I think that most anyone would answer yes to this one.

    2) & 3) I do know that there are those who equate wealth with faith and, consequently, poverty with lack of faith. Jim Bakker used to be very much in this vein before his stint in prison. He subsequently had a change of heart and acknowledges this, and other errors in I Was Wrong. I don’t know that there is any evidence that 35 million Americans believe this. Nor do I see much of a connection between believing this and “functioning as a Dominionist”. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    4) & 5) Have you a source for contending that a significant number of people believe these? I personally don’t know anyone who does. Again, I fail to see the connection between believing these things, if indeed anybody does, and functioning as a Dominionist.

    6) Actually, Jesus, himself, believed this: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6) so, yeh, I would suppose there are more than 35 million Americans who believe and would answer yes to this. I doubt, however, that this has any relevance to the political realm for the vast majority of them. And by the way, it isn’t Christians who consign non-Christians to hell–that’s Jesus’s job. But what does this have to do with advancing the Dominionist cause?

    7) Can you say “Straw Man”? I knew you could. The only ones that I know of that would say this would be the “Ruby Ridge” fringe. I know no one, and I would venture to say that neither do you, who believes this. You would really have to work hard to convince me that anything like 35 million Americans believe this. I will freely admit that believing this WOULD be dangerous but, man, I think you’re way off base if you think that anything like 35 million Americans think this.

    As for your second set, since they are quotes from the Bible, virtually every Christian believes them…including those whom you are attempting to paint as functioning Dominionists.

    Jet, thank you for sharing but Christians do not claim to know all. Christians will tell you that the only one who knows all is God. Virtually no one will tell you that they know all.

    And you certainly cannot say that Christians leave God out of the equation; the Christians that I know are bringing up God every chance they get. And you know what? So are the people that you are claiming to be Dominionists and “functional” Dominionists. I think you are way off base with this.

    Power mind-set. Let’s remember what you are talking about. Christians have no power except the vote and running for office. Those who vote have exactly as much power as you or I or any other voter; no more and no less. Those who run for office can only do so by gaining the confidence of the electorate. This pretty much excludes the sort of people who hold the extreme views that you are talking about.

    I know that you consider it subverting the nation but, um, you run into the problem of showing that answering yes to any of the first seven statements means subverting the nation. Even the evil neo-cons, whom I am sure you believe are subverting the nation, are not doing so. They are operating within the Constitutional system. You just disagree with them.

    Making more poor? No, the living standard of all Americans today is higher than it has been throughout most of American history. I know that you believe that giving tax breaks to the rich and to corporations makes more poor but think about it…who is it that hires and therefore creates wealth in this nation? It is the rich and the corporations. I know that you all laugh at trickle down economics but if we have high employment it is because Corporations can afford to hire people. Because Corporations hire people, they can afford to consume. Because Corporations like Wal-Mart, that you all love to hate, keep prices low, even lower class people can afford to buy more. I know that Liberals have their preferred ways of doing things but that doesn’t mean that you’re right. And Christians do care for the poor and the needy. They give to charities that directly aid the poor and the needy. They volunteer, many of them, of their time and energies to helping the poor and needy.

    As you say, all are sinners, including Christian Conservatives. They have their foibles just as you do. Who, exactly, is it here that is putting down and trying to control people here, Jet? You seem to be doing the same thing here by setting up straw arguments and trying to convince and control your readers into believing that it proves that there are 35 million functional Dominionists in America and therefore every Christian Conservative is a witting or unwitting member of an evil plot to subvert America. Do conservative Christians exhibit “honesty, humility, and self sacrifice”? Most of them do, yes. Not perfectly but then nobody does, not even liberal Christians.

    Of course Ms. Baker has a right to speak…doesn’t mean she’s right. If you think that being a Conservative Christian makes one “inherently violent, and a cruel, tyrannical, punitive, force of death and destruction”, prove it…but you’re gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than you’ve done here, my friend. It is not the Conservative Right in America that is flying planes into twin towers, blowing themselves up to target civilians, and fomenting jihad around the world. I think you have us confused with some other group of people. Ms. Baker makes the same mistake you do…she equates the Christian Right with Dominionism. Sorry man, but you’ve got a long way to go before you make a convincing case for that.

  4. By Tom Harper on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    I answered Yes to all seven questions in that first quiz. Did I pass :)
    Another excellent post, Jet. The contrast between those two quizzes really drives home the phoniness and powermongering of so many “Christian” movements.

    And OK Democrat’s question, would George Bush turn down the throne if it was offered? Hell, he’s trying to take it, and it hasn’t even been offered.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Joseph,

    [God] is not sitting somewhere deciding which politicians and policies to support

    No, you’re right but we live in an open society where everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, are encouraged not only to vote according to their conscience but also to run for office.

    He is sitting, hoping and yes, praying that we will somehow find a way to put the lust for power out of our heads.

    I see, so no Christian should ever run for office or vote in your America? Fine, why not just amend the Constitution to take those civic rights and responsibilities away from anyone who professes faith in Christ. Great idea.

    Would Bush do the same [turn down the throne]? It is doubtful.

    Fine you doubt. Whatever.

    He won’t even admit to wrongdoing to save face in the world eye, much less do anything to actually prove that we are still a Democracy.

    Actually Bush has admitted to wrongdoing. He has admitted to being wrong about WMD. Just because, however, you think that a war to depose Saddam & Company, the most Stalinist regime since, well, Stalin, is doing wrong, doesn’t make it so. To say he was wrong for doing the right thing would be both a lie and wrong. And Bush was, after all, elected. He doesn’t have to prove that we are still a Democracy…well, we aren’t and never have been a Democracy, we are a union of sovereign Republics according to the Constitution but I know what you mean. Trust me, we still are and that will be proven in 2006, 2008, 2010…

    I fear that our Republic is in peril, more grave than ever since the Civil War. We are involved in a new civil war, an UN civil war…

    Huh? a UN civil war? What are you talking about. The last time Americans took up arms against Americans was, well, just about 1863, no? Okay, you could argue that mass killing and oppression of native Americans constitutes such. You could argue that firing on workers who tried to unionize in the early part of the 20th Century constituted such. You could argue that firing on Civil Rights protesters in the mid 1900’s and, later, firing on anti-Vietnam War protesters constitutes Americans taking up arms against Americans. A case could even be made for unequal treatment of blacks in this country constitutes the same but somehow I don’t think that you have in mind any of these things.

    The more we fight one-party rule, the more the majority strangles our ability to do so.

    I Don’t know what you’re talking about. I think you are confusing one party rule with majority party rule. Actually, that’s the way our country works…always has. If the minority party wants to participate in that rule, it either has to create coalitions across party lines or, well, cease to be the minority party. Sorry, man, but the Democrats lost the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress. Deal…preferably by regaining the majority through more popular platforms. That’s the way it’s done in America.

    The harder we try, the more damage they reap. If something doesn’t change, we will be a Republic in name alone. This is the goal of the religious right and its allies. This is the true meaning and goal of dominionists.

    There you go again religious right = dominionists. Actually, we will be a Republic for as long as our Constitution stands and is followed. As of yet, there are no visible signs that this is in any danger of changing any time soon.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Tom,

    Hell, [Bush]’s trying to take [the throne], and it hasn’t even been offered.

    Whatever. Get back to me on the day after Bush gives up the Presidency to whomever wins the next presidential election. That’s not the sort of thing that Kings do…Okay, well there was that Brit that abdicated over his love affair with a commoner, but even then, he gave up the throne to another throne-occupier.

    Get a grip on yourself, man.

  7. By pia on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    But this is what we deserve for not becoming born-again devotees of their Jesus. And we deserve even worse—to burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed.

    So this is what I am? And we’re I’m going?

    Think not. Another wonderful post; thanks for opening my eyes to this, Jet

  8. By pia on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Meant to add; Craig, I’m not an expert on this, but you make certain blanket assumptions about us that might not be true.

    Your comments lately seem to have an edge to them that weren’t there before and aren’t quite true.

    How long did it take for Bush to admit to there being no WMD? Did he scream it so that every person who heard that there were heard that there weren’t? No.

    How many people were killed or wounded and wasn’t that the entire rationale for going to war?

    Could go on but I have to go.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Pia,

    Apologies for blanket assumptions. Can we have the same from those making blanket assumptions about all those on the Christian Right being witting or unwitting Dominionists? Including you, Pia? I mean what is this?

    But this is what we deserve for not becoming born-again devotees of their Jesus. And we deserve even worse—to burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed.

    Pia, I am a devout member of the Christian Right. When was the last time I said that you are expendable, inconsequential, to be conquered, imprisoned or killed? This is what I am talking about…blanket assumptions with no logical backing in fact. Is it any wonder that I have an edge in my writing when I read unsupported statements like:

    We are involved in a new civil war, an UN civil war, one that will have no winners, only losers. The more we fight one-party rule, the more the majority strangles our ability to do so. The harder we try, the more damage they reap. If something doesn’t change, we will be a Republic in name alone. This is the goal of the religious right and its allies. This is the true meaning and goal of dominionists.

    I’m not supposed to respond in kind?

    Oh, you don’t mean me personally. Sorry but I am a member of the very group being painted with tar deserved by only a very few fanatical extremists. I hope you can forgive me.

    When I respond with resoned argument to this irrational post, I am ignored. No that’s not correct, I am that I am making blanket assumptions and have an edge.

  10. By Tom Harper on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Craig:

    Saddam Hussein was the most Stalinist regime since Stalin? As bad as he was, the world is full of brutal dictators. Amnesty International (or a similar group) had a list several years ago of the ten worst dictators. Hussein was on there, but our good buddy Saudi Arabia was higher on the list. Syria also ranked higher.

    And that call-to-war mantra from 2002, “he gassed his own people!” referred to the 1980s when Iraq was our ally against Iran.

    Our “leaders” are very selective about when to be apalled by human rights violations and when to look the other way. (This has always been true, for Democratic and Republican administrations.)

  11. By Joseph (OK Democrat) on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Craig:

    “No, you’re right but we live in an open society where everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, are encouraged not only to vote according to their conscience but also to run for office.”- you said

    What I am saying is that God does not wish any morality, even his own, to be forced on his children. That’s what the GOP wants to do, or at least the religious right that partially controls them.

    “I see, so no Christian should ever run for office or vote in your America? Fine, why not just amend the Constitution to take those civic rights and responsibilities away from anyone who professes faith in Christ. Great idea.”- you said

    Once again, you are taking my comment out of context. What I am saying is that Christians should not base their political policies exclusively on their religious views. Face it, this is a complex world and no matter how moral the Bible or any other text is, golden rules can’t solve everything and should not be forced on people in an attempt to do so. Christians can run for office but not to be Theocrats.

    “Actually Bush has admitted to wrongdoing.”- you said

    Bush has NOT admitted to wrongdoing on nearly the scale of his guilt. He admitted to being wrong about wmd’s but not to trumping up the evidence that didn’t exist. He hasn’t admitted to the lies and that’s what he is most guilty of. Everyone hounded Clinton about lies, why the double standard?

    “Huh? a UN civil war? What are you talking about.”- you said

    This very conflict between Centrists and the Extremist Righties IS a war Craig. There hasn’t been a time where politics divided the nation like this since the Civil War. This IS a war, Craig. Words can be as deadly as weapons.

    “I Don’t know what you’re talking about. I think you are confusing one party rule with majority party rule.”- you said

    I am not confusing anything. The difference between one party and majority rule is that in majority rule, the majority has controlling interests in lawmaking but DOES NOT ignore the rest of the nation. Controlling interest is not autocracy, which is how Frist, Bush and DeLay run the show. They only reach out to Democrats now and then to make it look like they are trying but when it comes down to it, they ignore and despise Democrats and Democratic proposals. They are practicing one-party rule Craig, whether you want to admit it or argue it.

    As to your last statement, you are right. I should have said that the religious right wants us to become the “Holy Republic if Bushistan”, not that we wouldn’t be a Republic. My mistake. In all fairness, you are mistaken my friend.

  12. By sally on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Actually Bush has admitted to wrongdoing. He has admitted to being wrong about WMD. Just because, however, you think that a war to depose Saddam & Company, the most Stalinist regime since, well, Stalin, is doing wrong, doesn’t make it so. To say he was wrong for doing the right thing would be both a lie and wrong.

    Craig, when was this?

    The closest he has said was that the intelligence was faulty.

    OKAY…Was that because he was going to invade Iraq no matter what and wanted to interpret the intelligence to fit his agenda of invading Iraq no matter what?

    I am not of the opinion that the Iraq war was categorically wrong. Saddam Hussein was a despicable dictator whose brutal leadership of Iraq was worthy of ouster…but not through the ridiculous charade of WMD and a link to terrorism!

  13. By James on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    I’m TOTALLY screwed I guess since I’m Buddhist.

  14. By Jet on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    If you are interested in reading hundreds of scary quotes by the people building Dominionism, I recommend you spend some time perusing Theocracy Watch. http://www.theocracywatch.org/

    I am not saying that Christian Republicans and the Religious Right are synonymous. Indeed, the protests from Christian Republicans regarding the Religious Right are on the rise. There was considerable outrage over the actions of Chandler in E. Waynesville, NC. Many people of faith find what is happening in this country, justified in the name of Jesus Christ, to be blasphemous.

    Saying that the people who don’t believe precisely as you do are against God has no merit, if what you are attempting to accomplish by invoking God’s name is against what God wants. He does not want this country, he wants to see each soul, individually, attempting to find him.

    I stand by my post. In my heart I know that the desire for power cannot glorify God, regardless of the trappings of persecution you cloak it in.

  15. By sally on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Jet, that last comment says it well!

  16. By Steve on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    Good post, keep up the good work!

  17. By Craig R. Harmon on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    To all of you,

    I am disengaging myself from this discussion. No, don’t bother responding to my original comment rebutting the post. I withdraw it and all of the rest of my comments. Bask in your conspiracy theories. I’m done trying.

  18. By Gun-Toting Liberal on May 19, 2005 | Reply

    This was a great rant, from one of my favorite bloggerettes.

    As per the left-wing involved in this conversation, I have little to add. As per the “religious right” involved in this conversation, I point you to my last rant on the same subject:

    http://www.guntotingliberal.com/2005/05/under-this-government.html.

    It’s pretty cut and dried when it gets down to it. Now just how the HELL am I better off under a far-right theocracy again? Oh, and before you go askin’ that “WWJD?” crap… I’m gonna guess he’d pose the same questions I posed in my blog.

    So, put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it.

  19. By Hammertime on May 20, 2005 | Reply

    Once again, I post the same NRO article for you to read.

    Tin

    Foil

    Hat.

    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.

    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.

  20. By dhunley on May 21, 2005 | Reply

    It appears we’ve lost Mr. Harmon…too bad. He made the classic mistake of the logical mind…trying to deal with insanity by being rational; it’s a mistake I don’t have to worry about…lol. So…

    Well….well…it’s the old Kool-aid colony! Sorry I haven’t been here for a while (been busy burning heretics and starving babies don’t'cha know)…but I heard old Harry Reid speak for the first time the other day (on a radio program called Rush Limbaugh…ever hear of him?…I think he’s got some kind of mind control thing going on because after 15 minutes of listening to him, I start to droll and hair grows on my back.)
    Anyway…I heard Harry Reid speak and it was such a whiney, oh-woe-is-me distortion of facts that, of course, I thought of you guys right away. And I see nothing has changed…lol. Still like that bunch of woebegone rabbits in the snare invested warrens on Watership Downs…

    Pia…why of course you are…expendable and inconsequential that is (as far as burning in hell…I don’t know, that’s all left up to the Big Guy :)…but it’s your own fault. See…the minute you abandoned the constitutional protection for our unborn and brain damaged…you opened the door for your own protection to be removed. And now that we have a Supreme Court Justice who feels free to look to the precedents of other countries for her rulings…it’s even easier. Now I can just look for laws that support my desire to conquer, break, imprison, or kill you. And there are PLENTY of those to choose from.

    (I’m serious here) Do you guys ever even TRY to figure things out? (now I’m not:) Or are you too contentedly huddled around the soda straw to actually engage a few brain cells? Just asking rhetorically, you understand. I don’t expect any serious discussion to ever happen in here. (I do expect a few whines about sending back to you some of the nonsense you send out…lol).

    By the way…have you gotten any city councilmen removed lately? Sure aint had any luck elsewhere have you? And now that the Supreme Court is ours to take—you had BETTER hope we follow the constitution a whole lot better than you guys did.

    What a bunch of LOSERS….lol…and NOT, by the way, the kind of loser Harry Reid means it when he said President Bush was a loser (that kind of loser seems to accomplish nearly everything he sets out to do)…no, I’m talking about the Daschle/Gore/Kerry/you-guys kind of losers.
    I’m coming for you Pia…Bible in one hand, pitchfork in the other.

  21. By Jet on May 21, 2005 | Reply

    Davie, I will pray for you tonight. The state of your soul concerns me.

  22. By The Cranky Liberal on May 21, 2005 | Reply

    Oh Hunley, so nice to hear you again. I was missing your wit and charm and class. I just love you man. Feel free to stop by more often. I mean I’m trying to teach my four year old logic, and all I have to do is read him things you type in and ask him to pick out the flaws. Amazing what a well educated four year old can do. I mean not that it’s hard to pick apart your arguments, I think that counting horse at the fair could probably do it - but it’s more fun to let you bask in the glow that is your own smug self satisfaction.

    Speaking solely for myself and not the other losers that write hear, feel free to promote some self love with yourself you smug self righteous jackass.

  23. By Hammertime on May 21, 2005 | Reply

    Let’s take a little quiz, shall we?

    Do you believe any of the following statements to be true?

    1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

    2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

    3. When in another’s home, show him respect or else do not go there.

    4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

    5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

    6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

    7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

    8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

    9. Do not harm little children.

    10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

    11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him

    Did you answer true to any of these? Did you answer true to most, or all of them? Congratulations, and welcome to the 35 Million Club!

    Which 35 Million Club? Why, the Church of Satan 35 million club, of course! You may not even realize you are a part of it - after all, what I wanted to convey was that 35 million people are Church of Satan influenced, and most of them are quite fervent about their beliefs. People who are swayed to that degree are functioning as Satanists, whether they accept the title or not.

    Is the utter illogic and maddening conspiracy-theory-addled-thinking behind this clear now?

    But this is what we deserve for not becoming born-again devotees of their Jesus. And we deserve even worse—to burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed.

    So this is what I am? And we’re I’m going?

    Just say, “I hate those who follow Christ faithfully” and get it over with.

  24. By pia on May 22, 2005 | Reply

    Hunley
    I’m a little–no a lot confused. You’re answering a comment that I made to another post where a comment said that the Christian right voted in largest numbers.

    I said that Jews vote but many times when our numbers are too large, the district gets changed, so that our vote gets watered down.

    And it’s a bit hard to forget all the Jew jokes made after Florida 2000 because they weren’t making fun of me or my generation, but people who had escaped the Nazi’s or had served in World War Two.

    And I guess you were answering my posts on Terri. it’s a bit hard to follow your non-logic.

    Did I ever say that all people who are brain damaged should be killed? Not at all–but I’ve already said what I had to on that subject.

    Are you saying that soley because of Jews abortion is legal? Are you saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the one Supreme Court Justice with any power?

    Thanks, you’re imbuing me with all this power I never knew I had.

    One thing I did learn when I was on Grand Jury is that many of our laws are based on European law, and that Justice Kennedy (not Jewish) was only following precedent when he looked to other countries laws.

    Have to go consult with the rest of the two percent of the population who are Jewish to figure out ways to legally strangle you.

    We all do get together once a week to figure things like that out. Hunley you so understand us, let me take the illogic remark back.

    We have secret meetings every Sunday when people like you are at Church and we decide how to run the country. Specifically this week we decided to convene and see how DL Hunley could be stopped in his tracks–as we want you to understand how self-important we think you are.

    Hammer nobody hates people who follow Christ faithfully. It’s when people decide that all people should follow their doctrine that we do feel much fear based on stories past down through the generations about actions taken in the name of Christ. Not talking Hitler here, obviously, but the programs that took place in Europe earlier in the 20th century–and much more.

    Excuse me while I go meet with my fellow Jews and decide how to take over the world.

  25. By pia on May 22, 2005 | Reply

    hunley after rereading your comment for some reason for the fourth time, I realized that you were taking my comment in this piece and trying to be funny and sarcastic.

    you’re funny without trying to be so don’t. Sarcasm–not too good on that front; I would leave it for people who know how to do it. Take Cranky as a role model–though you wouldn’t know how to follow him in your deepest dreams.

    Do find it funny that you call me a whiner. Just have to show that you’re part of a crowd that makes no sense to begin with.

    Were I you, I would try to decide whether your obvious anger at me is based on hatred of me and things I have said; my being unapolgetic about being a third generation New York Jew; or things other people have said.

    But as Cranky said you’re so illgical his four year old son could make better logical statements.

    Now I really have to go to the Sunday morning mass Jewish meeting where we’re all magically transported to the same place so we can all think exactly alike and decide how we’re going to change the world this week.

    So great to have so much power. Thanks for letting the world in, in our little secret.

  26. By Hammertime on May 23, 2005 | Reply

    Pia,
    So, are all those who think that Christ is the only way (and thus, others are, whether we like it or not, headed to the big BBQ) desirous of your destruction? Of course not. However, that’s what statements like the one I quoted from you imply.

    Good grief, I’m often called a neo-con, which as you know, is a code word for Jooooo. I’m pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, and pro-human being. The fact that I desire that everyone come to Christ to be saved doesn’t make me a hater.

    The perveyors of this Dominionist nonsense seek to paint every faithful follower of Christ as some looney fascist who explicitly or implicitly espouses religious oppression through the government. Doesn’t sound much like “Blessed are the meek” to me. If you buy into Jet’s argument, that’s the logical conclusion. You can’t have one without the other.

  27. By Hammertime on May 23, 2005 | Reply

    Oh, I just read Hunley’s rant. I didn’t find a single reference to Jews. What are you talking about, Pia?

    Clearly at Grand Jury they didn’t tell you that no Supreme Court Justice ever found a law constitutional or unconstitutional due to some European law (of course, only the laws of the countries that supported Kennedy’s pre-determined position, not the others that don’t!) Kennedy, et al. are writing laws that no US citizen has ever voted into law or had their legislators vote into law. That, my dear, is not democracy.

    Defend the ruling on moral terms? Fine. We can disagree and both have valid positions. Defend it on legal, Constitutional terms? You lose.

  28. By The Complimenting Commenter on May 23, 2005 | Reply

    You make some great points and arguments. You seem passionate about this, which is cool. Your seven points/counter-points are well done. Keep up the nice posts.

    Thanks for commenting on the site.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel