We know that Sarah Palin believes in Creationism and thinks that it should be taught as science in public schools. But she’s not really a Creationist, she actually subscribes to another Christian faction called DOMINIONISM. Daily KOS is sounding the alarm bells over the dominionist connection, but of what does this doctrine really consist?
Dominionism: (or Reconstructionism)A particular school of evangelical political thought that holds Christians as having rightful “dominion” over the earth- including its political institutions. They wish to make America a “Christian” nation, ruled by Christians, and have stated boldly that the U.S. Constitution should be replaced by Christian sovereignty and Christian principles, including, by the way- the execution of gays.
The fountainhead of Dominionist theology is Rousas John Rushdoony, who held, among other notions, that the principles of Christianity and democracy are enemies.
Pat Robertson is, and Jerry Falwell was….self-avowed Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists.
Oh, and you should know that James Dobson (pray to God for political gain, no matter how malicious the consequences) is absolutely THRILLED that McCain has picked Sarah Palin as the VP nomination for the Republican party ticket.Here’s a further description in laymen’s terms:
Broadly, it’s used to describe Christian conservatives who seek Biblical influence or control over secular government. There are obviously variations on the degree to which they want to influence government. But the fundamental principles are:1. We were founded as a Christan Nation.
2. Christianity is superior to other religions (not all seek convert all people though that varies as well.)
3. Our laws should be based on Biblical law.This attempt to replace democratic ethics with religion is truly disturbing to citizens who believe that the Constitution should be the rule of the land. The Palin nomination is giving the fundamentalist right all sorts of Jesusgasms. The Christian Taliban is counting on your vote for Ms. Palin.
I’ve been saying this for years. See? I’m not paranoid! Thank you Red for lending some more credibility to an oft-understood political manipulation by the Christian right.
It’s funny how Christians cry about religious freedom and persecution when in reality they are the persecutors. They fight for ‘religious freedom,’ as long as it’s Christianity… and always have.
The Bible even says they should do this, according to their warped, tunnel-visioned worldview anyway. They want to run everything and indeed run more than they probably should. It’s all extremely subversive.
Christians do not have dominion over anything, never have, and hopefully never will. I can guarantee you as non-Christian student of Jesus: he is most certainly crying by now.
Kudos on having the courage, under no uncertain terms, to call a spade a spade. The Christian right and the Taliban, without exaggeration, are practically interchangeable. It’s not surprising that many of us on this blog opposed ‘In God We Trust, Inc’ of Bakersfield.
SMS
Thanks for the comments, Sarah.
It used to be that the Xtian Taliban could sneak around and get things done behind the scenes. However will all the government monies going to various religious groups under Bush, they have grown in numbers and boldness.
Dobson praying for God’s torrential rains on Obama’s speech was prideful and VERY anti-Jesus, imo. He’s becoming as mean and agressively outspoken as Falwell and Fred Phelps.
I am hopeful that all these weakly thought-out actions and decisions are indicating an upcoming capitulation. The pride before the fall, so to speak, of arrogant bigots, liars, thugs and oppressors.
Oh, and as a side note, I should also say that I thought Pastor Rick Warren did a great job in the Presidential Forum. I got the impression that he wants to embody the real Christian values of peace and freedom. He was extremely cordial to and understanding of Barack Obama despite their many ideological differences, and it was very politically savvy on Warren’s part.
My point is that not all Christians are evil, even if many of their leaders are. It’s important to get that out there.
SMS
Sarah,
I agree. I am pleased to see many of the new Mega Churches teeming with messages of hope, positive action and personal responsibility.
The fire-and-brimstone preachers lost most of their audiences a couple of decades ago. Hopefully the meanies like Dobson will lose their audiences as they go over the top in their attempts to power grab at politics. I really don’t think Jesus would have that particular focus, if he were here today.
SMS,
Actually, the Bible commands us to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21) and also to “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority”. So your reading of what the Bible teaches is inaccurate. Dominionism is a theology created to fit a person’s preconceived notions and political agenda.
That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians engaging in public life and “speaking truth to power”. MLK is a shining example of movement that sprang out of the Christian church and inspired positive changes in civil rights. When a Christians engages in such a way, it doesn’t NECESSARILY mean they want to promote Dominionism.
It was theologian Martin Luther who began the separation of the state from the church. I commend his doctrine of the Two Kingdoms to all that are interested.
anon-
… except you’re forgetting:
In order to decipher that passage, one must decide for themselves what is to be given to Caesar and what is to be given to God. In fact, it sort of implies that the Bible advocates the separation of church and state, does it not?
My interpretation of the Bible is not inaccurate in that it does teach that a good Christian should ‘spread the news of God,’ and by extension, his laws, which again, are determined through the filter of Christian leaders’ (mankind’s) interpretations.
You are correct in your definition of the word dominionism in that the concept is secular in nature. However, it has been utilized by the Christian right more times than I can count, beginning with the Founding. Luckily, Jefferson and Franklin, devout Christians both, won out.
Plus, MLK, despite his ordination and the Christian overtones to his work, was better known as a secular civil rights leader, not a religious leader, so I don’t think he qualifies to be involved in this discussion. He didn’t only fight for the rights of African-Americans who were Christian; hell, he didn’t even fight only for the rights of African-Americans et al; he fought for equal rights for all. See: ‘I Have A Dream’ speech. He was an exceptional Christian, but he was an exceptional American first.
… not to mention that a lot has changed within the church in 45 years. King’s probably crying right alongside Jesus.
SMS
SMS,
King’s work in the civil rights movement sprang TOTALLY from his personal faith and understanding of God’s word. It was the very foundation of what he believed. His faith also influenced his understanding of other social justice issues, and even issues like war and peace. You simply can’t separate King from his Christian faith, despite what he was “known” as.
BTW, the passage in Matthew is in the context of paying taxes. The Hebrews passage is a general command to respect ruling authorities.
anon –
‘King’s work in the civil rights movement sprang TOTALLY from his personal faith and understanding of God’s word.‘
I agree. My problem is with saying that the idea of equal rights is a religious concept. I think most people would disagree with that statement.
I also don’t think King’s argument was religious in nature despite its origins within his own personal life. He didn’t say that we as good Christians should accept equal rights as the law of the land, he said we should do so as good Americans, again, his personal religious beliefs not withstanding.
As to your second point. Taxes are money. Money is power. Power is authority. And according to you, the Bible contains a ‘general command to respect ruling authorities.’ Since modern Christians are so hell bent on dictating morality for everyone, doesn’t that make their actions even more subversive?
If the Bible teaches them to respect authority, isn’t it a sin for them to try take it over from the inside as they have in order to avoid a more obvious moral conflict?
So again I ask: can’t that passage be interpreted as a mandate from God for the separation of church and state?
SMS
SMS,
Yes, I think you could make a strong case that the concept of separation of church and state does not conflict with “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s…” In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the Founders who argued strongly for the separation of church and state had that verse in mind, along with other influences.
I think King himself would say that his argument regarding civil rights was religious in nature. Completely. And I think that the idea of equal rights CAN be inspired by one’s religion…it’s just that Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Hindus etc.) all have different takes on their faith and how to apply it to daily life and our relationships with other human beings.
By the way, I don’t subscribe to dominionism. If you look at the complete panorama of Christian denominations, dominionism is very much a fringe theology. The problem is that “conservative Christians” who subscribe to that theology are also very politically active and they make a lot of noise and get a lot of press coverage.
anon –
Absolutely (to all of it)!
SMS
I’d throw Palin and McLame to the lions, however, the meal would be pretty weak since they’re both a couple of empty suits.
RV, you are my new hero on this blog. Keep up the good work! Life is more than real estate…
Red Vixen, This is really becoming hard now. Damn you Obama! To have a candidate that you can’t trash on a personal, abuse of power, ambitious, teen pregnancy, miss america, tv newsroom intern, unvetted, insult to women, radical religious beliefs, level just isnt fair.
Thank you for the tasteful way you implied without any proof that she’s a Dominionist. Its always good to hold a little back.
Junior #14
Sorry you choose to lump in ALL Christians into the Xtian Taliban group.
And yes, this Dominionist faction wants what the Muslim Taliban wants – absolute power in government to make its citizens follow religious doctrine, rather than the Constitution.
I value the Constitution over superstitious wranglings any day.
#15 anonyms,
Palin certainly seems like a complex choice for McCain to have made. She certainly appears to have quite a bit more baggage than say, Todd-Whitman, Condi Rice, Kay Bailey etc…
It is a puzzlement. James Dobson is estatic. I think that if you follow the money, you’ll realize that McCain made the best choice for his campaign.
Junior,
Those political powergrabbing factions are NOT Christlike.
You’re nitpicking to dismiss an argument. You most likely side with the “Divine Deception” tactics that Dominionists utilize to achieve power. You probably believe that the ten commandments trump civil rights and justice under the constitution. After all, Christians are the only way to heaven, right?
Tell me, if the Muslims were the dominate religion and used their influence to change a political party would you just buckle under the shift to religious rules in place of the constitution? I doubt it.
Religion is unprovable, so it is relegated to “belief”. I respect all religions that assist their congregations for betterment. However I don’t want one or another as the dominate political decision maker in charge. The religious right is of concern. If you want to play innocent and let them grab power because you associate with their beliefs, then that is your choice. But do it with honesty – not with some petty “issue” over “Xtians” as a label.
Sarah Palin gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome at the age of 44.
Is anyone else appalled at this?
The risk of giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome is extremely high in women over 40 (and even higher when the father is also over 40).
http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030701/dad-age-down-syndrome
Sarah Palin “opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples”.
I am disgusted by this irresponsible behaviour. To give birth at age 44 to a baby with Down’s because you refuse to use birth control inexcusable. Ignoring the dangers that you expose yourself and your baby to by refusing to use birth control after 40 is negligent and careless. To believe that a woman like this has the opportunity to become Vice President of the United States of America in 2008 makes me ill.
Does anyone else share this opinion?
#21 –
Actually, yeah. I do share that opinion. I may not have worded it as strongly, but the logic is sound.
SMS
Hello, reproductive freedom…?
Go ahead and bash it frogcatcher…make it easy.
So it’s ok to insist that younger females have it but once you hit 40 it’s not ok?
Additionally, think not only of the age discrimination you have just made but the huge chink you put into reproductive rights.
Carl –
Nobody is questioning anybody’s rights or freedoms. I believe the criticism is of her judgment. Having a baby at 44 is, dare I say it, as risky as choosing Sarah Palin for VP.
SMS
Regarding the Down Syndrome child: Teen mothers have the highest number of DS babies – due to the high numbers of pregnancies for that group. However, a woman over 45 has a GREATER chance of having a DS baby.
Like gay marriage and like choosing one’s own religion, it should be an individual matter of choice.
The Xtian Taliban wants to tell everyone else what they can/cannot do, while giving a free pass to their own, when circumstances pop up.
Oh, and here’s Ms. Palin on Sex ED:
Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
The Irony.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09…
frogcatcher912..you make me sick.
She found out when she was 4 months pregnant that her baby had DS, she was supposed to KILL the child??
That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard.
Besides the fact that is whole discussion of Palin infant child, is a little off track with the subject…
Some of you sure do make me sick.
How can you look in the mirror and be ok with who you are?
The logic!?! Are you serious? It sounds asinine to me! She could have had a perfectly healthy baby as well? I have had several aunts who had babies after 40 who were perfectly healthy.
If you are pro choice how can you condemn a woman for making the choice to keep a child who is not perfectly healthy.So when you have a DS baby they should just be aborted? Or wait she is over 40 she shouldn’t be aloud to have children? That makes sense right. How any mother could condemn another for loving and keeping her child is sickening.
And before you bash me for being a conservative blah blah blah. You can shut it, I am Republican and I am pro choice! And guess what? That choice goes both ways.
You know everyone pushes their beliefs on everyone whether you are James Dobson or Barak Obama. Believe it or not Barak has a belief system too just like any average Joe does. So I guess that makes him a hater too and you and me. We are all just haters. This is some absurd stuff. I don’t care who you are, whatever you believe, you think your right. So I guess everyone can get off the high horse because at the end of the day everyone is on it.
There are a whole lot of religious people in America, including the majority of Democrats. When we abandon the field of religious discourse—when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
BARACK OBAMA, Audacity of Hope
http://www.notable-quotes.com/o/obama_barack.html
Just as Sarah was, I was raised Catholic and although I still consider myself \Catholic\ I did experience being born again. That’s where my similarity to Sarah Palin ends. What Palin represents are the Un-Christian Christians in our society who have warped Jesus’ message for their own end.
Here are some more “Dominionists” for everyone to fret about:
Thomas Jefferson: “The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.”
Will Rogers: “If the Bolsheviks say that religion was holding the people back from progress, why, let it hold them back. Progress ain’t selling that high. If it is, it ain’t worth it. … They picked the only one thing I know of to suppress that is absolutely necessary to run a Country on, and that is Religion.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren: “I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Saviour have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses. … Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia … or to the Charter of New England … or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay … or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut … the same objective is present: a Christian land governed by Christian principles. … I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. … I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.”
Theodore Roosevelt: “There is no patent recipe for getting good citizenship. You get it by applying the old, old rules of decent conduct, the rules in accordance with which decent men have had to shape their lives from the beginning … fundamental precepts, put forth in the Bible and embodied consciously or unconsciously in the code of morals of every great and successful nation from antiquity to modern times. … You are not going to make any new commandments at this stage which will supply the place of the old ones. The truths that were true at the foot of Mt. Sinai are true now. The truths that were true when the Golden Rule was promulgated are true now. No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden Rule into his life conduct. I appeal for a study of the Bible on many different accounts, even aside from its ethical and moral teachings, even aside from the fact that all serious people, all men who think deeply, even among non-Christians, have come to agree that the life of Christ, as set forth in the four Gospels, represents an infinitely higher and purer morality than is preached in any other book of the world. … The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally — I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally — impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards toward which we, with more or less resolution, strive to raise ourselves.”
Harry Truman: “Men can build a good society, if they follow the will of the Lord. Our great Nation was founded on this faith. Our Constitution, and all our finest traditions, rest on a moral basis. We believe in the dignity and the rights of each individual. We believe that no person — and no group of people — has an inherent right to rule over any other person or any other group. … We are continuing to move forward every day toward greater freedom and equal opportunity for all citizens. This is a purpose each of us must strive to achieve, in his daily life, and in his own community. It is a purpose which, in some cases, requires collective action, through our elected representatives in local, State, and Federal governments.”
Abraham Lincoln: “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said: ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ ”
Those words from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address are counted as among the finest in our heritage. Yet they embrace three concepts much sneered at in liberal circles today: that justice requires retribution, that ancient Scriptures are relevant to modern issues, and that our country, along with all others, is subject to God’s authority.
I leave it to any rational reader to discern whether Sarah Palin, or her dyspeptic “Jesusgasms,” “Christian Taliban” detractor, is more in sync with the sentiments expressed by Jefferson, Rogers, Warren, Roosevelt, Truman and Lincoln as quoted above. (chapter and verse may be found at http://www.fairamendment.us/Crime,%20Realignment%20and%20the%20Will%20Rogers%20Republican.htm#note%2031, or, in the case of Earl Warren, at Yo! Liberals! You Call This Progress?, Chapter 23, available for purchase here: http://www.fairamendment.us/contact1.htm).
Karl Spence
Is there any statistical evidence that “explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools” have had any discernable impact on the rate of teen pregnancy or the spread of STDs in those areas where these programs have been implemented? I’m skeptical as to how effective these programs are. It’s notable that, in another educational arena, the DARE program has been utterly useless in decreasing recreational drug usage among teenagers. In fact statistics indicate DARE graduates are more likely to indulge in recreational drug usage than non-DARE graduates.
#30
Gertrude,
Most schools have not been allowed to fully practice teaching safe sex, so it is hard to answer any kind of accountability questions.
We know that pregnancy and STD’s can be protected against IF the individual uses a condom correctly. However, not all individuals have the knowledge or “permission” to practice safe sex. If kids are not able to discuss sex and explain how to prevent disease or how to prevent pregnancy, then they are NOT ready to engage in sex and more importantly, they are NOT READY FOR TO BECOME A PARENT. That is the simpliest way to predict prevention.
Having a baby is a life-altering decision and not knowing how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy shows a lack of judgment and lack of understanding of basic family planning practices.
Thanks to everyone for participating on this thread. I have noticed a fairly high rate of hits on this subject.
#29 Karl Spence,
Your information is incorrect. Thanks for stopping by.
Religious Tolerance is another good resource to further understand Reconstructionism/Dominionism:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Practices:
If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government, there would be many changes:
The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures’ laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these “crimes” to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.
The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband.
It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. Slave owners would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as the slaves lived for at least a day before dying of the beating. 9
Polygyny and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old Testament. However, Reconstructionists generally believe in marriage between one man and one woman only. Any other sexual expression would be a capital crime. Those found guilty of engaging in same-sex, pre-marital or extra-marital sex would be executed.
The Old Testament “Jubilee Year” system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. In theory, this would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians.
Governments would all have balanced budgets.
Income taxes would be eliminated.
The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
Legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for abortions would be charged with murder and executed.
The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E-mails which complained that the movement does not recommend the resumption of human slavery. But we have received many more Emails from Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery would be good for North America.
Joseph Busche and Bill Curry have written a Tennessee Law Book. Their intent was to show that laws to implement various Old Testament laws would sound extremely intrusive today. See: http://www.sullivan-county.com/.
Reading about Dominionism reminded me of a Science Fiction story I read first in the 1950’s written by a prolific scifi author Robert Heinlein. Like many of that genre he wrote stories that were remarkably prescient. The story in mind is one of his earliest published in 1939 titled ‘Revolt in 2100’. It was about a successful overthrow of a corrupt quasi-Christian religious dictatorship which had run the USA for over a century. Now if that ain’t Dominionism in a nutshell!
With totalitarian governments (right and left) commonplace at that time, I believe he realised the beginnings of Christian taliban in the early 30’s could gain enough momentum to take power, and wrote the story as a projection of their activities. However I think his timing was out due to the combined effect of WWII, 50’s consumer boom, permissive 60’s and 70’s which put the brakes on the rise of the Christian taliban for fifty years; but in another economic downturn, unless a major war develops they will probably rise unchecked.
A further point of interest is both Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard were stationed in San Diego navy base at the end of WWII and over a beer were wondering how to make a living after demob. It is allegedly reported that Heinlein said he would resume his writing career but Hubbard said I want to be a millionaire and the easiest way to earn that is found a religion. There a literally dozens of web pages about this urban myth; I say there’s no smoke without fire, but readers should draw their own conclusions.
I find it remarkable to see that, even with the glib and glossy packaging, the reconstructionists are so similar to the Islamic fundamentalists that the wars that we are fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan can now be looked at as holy wars…religious crusades that at least the Islamists recognize and we should recognize really soon. The motives of the American right wing seemed to be cloudy to me at first but now they are crystal clear. Both are seriously wrong. What do you do when you are in the middle?
Thanks to Michael for posting I had missed this thread entirely. Trf, thanks for another great thread.
WHat will happen when Bin Laden finally realizes that he can achieve his goal of Global Talibanism by joining forces with the GOP? Osama Bin Laden could easily court the GOP because Bin Ladens complaints against the West are the exact same complaints Christo-Taliban members have against the West. Bin Laden will wake up to this prospect, and he will lavish praise on US neocons, encourage them to overthrow the liberal democracy and create a brutal murderous ultra authoritarian one world government. OBL will realize how easy it would be to get neocons onto his side, because they already are, they just blaspheme a different bible to promote their goals.