Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Gerald Ford: A Profile in Political Courage

Gerald Ford, upon receiving the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2001:

“. . . The ultimate test of leadership is not the polls you take, but the risks you take. In the short run, some risks prove overwhelming. Political courage can be self-defeating. But the greatest defeat of all would be to live without courage, for that would hardly be living at all.”


He was a special President and a special man.

Quote from: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Break Time???

It's been several days since I posted anything so I thought I'd pop in and just write about what's been going on in my world.

I've been doing some deep cleaning at Mother's, getting ready for guests we'll have Christmas Eve and Christmas day. Yes, dear sister-in-law, I washed and changed your sheets today. The refrigerator has been cleaned out and the turkey, pulled from the freezer on Monday, is in the refrigerator to thaw...and it's taking its sweet time about it too.

Tomorrow I'll be doing the shopping. Mother went over her list and checked it, not twice but more like six times and then called me after I got home to add to it. :)

I've been having an interesting discussion in the group to which I belong. Not a lot of exchanges but a heavy topic. Maybe I'll share what I've learned at some point.

I saw Galway Kinnell on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer the other night. He read his poem "Why Regret?" One of my regrets in life had been that when I won an award when I was in my Senior year of high school to go to a summer workshop where I would have gotten to work one-on-one with Galway Kinnell, I ended up not getting to go due to some ugly circumstances. A friend of mine got to go and brought back a signed copy of one of his books of poetry for me. It would have been nice to have gotten to go but, as Kinnell pointed out, "Why Regret?" Things happened in my life that would never have happened if I had gone to that workshop. I met people I'd have never met and enjoyed the great, good fortune of working at "Taco Hut," oh, joy! Seriously, there are too many wonderful little things that happen each and every day, even the not so wonderful things can be of value. I decided to let go of my regret over not getting to meet Galway Kinnell at that workshop. I think he'd like that.

I have an idea or two for future posts when I get the time but, what better time of year than this to take a little break? Busy, busy.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

On Jeff Jacoby's "Atheists' bleak alternative"

Jeff Jacoby has written an excellent piece on the debated "war on Christmas," and it really isn't a war on Christmas as much as it is a war against Christians. Read it here:

Atheists' bleak alternative - The Boston Globe

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

...and yet, Christ Remains in CHRISTmas! Praise GOD!

My friend and co-contributor, PJ , has a new signature quotation on her email:

"And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more." ~Dr. Seuss


It happens to be my favorite line from How the Grinch Stole Christmas but, as I was lying in bed suffering from insomnia last night, the song You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, came to mind. There are a lot of Grinches in America today. It's as if some non-Christians want to completely remove the true meaning of Christmas and make it all about "com(ing) from a store."

I can't help but feel it's all sour grapes. Christmas is a holiday that is celebrated world wide, yet as long as it is associated with Christ, and it will always be associated with Christ, there will be people who, while professing Christians are sticking their noses into other people's business, would like to take Christmas away from Christians and turn it into an annual gift-giving extravaganza with no meaning.

Try as they might, they just can't make Christmas come from a store, and as I was thinking about that last night I realized something. I realized that for a Christian, no matter what anyone else chooses to call Christmas, it will always be Christmas and it will always truly live in the heart of a Christian as a celebration of Christ's birth, and more, the miracle of his birth and the miracle of God's plan to send his Son, as a baby, into this physical world to save mankind from his sin and offer us the gift of everlasting life. Non-Christians certainly don't have to celebrate God's gift of life, Christians can do nothing else in this season of joy. Take away every other "bell and whistle," and we'll still have that joy, that remembrance of what God has done for each of us. Christ, you see, lives in our hearts.

The politically correct crowd can take down Christmas trees, they can remove Nativity scenes, they can call Christians stupid, uneducated fools. They can beat us with rhetorical clubs, they can pretend to know what inspires us but, as "Grinch-like" as they are, they can never take away the hope in our hearts, the faith we hold so precious and which is so personal to us, the spirit of love that our annual celebration inspires.

Secularism has added some nice traditions to Christmas but try as it might, secular humanism will never provide that right relationship with God, will never change the heart of man, will never inspire love and forgiveness in a heart in any real and meaningful way. Only Christ can offer that, and for a Christian? We may open a few gifts, they signify a pale comparison to what God has done for us, and what he enables us to share out of that loving gift, so sacrificially given.

No, Mr. Grinch, "Christmas really doesn't come from a store."

I started this blog with the signature quotation being used by PJ in her email. I'll end it with the signature quotations I have been using in my own email:

"He was created of a mother whom he created. He was carried by hands that he formed. He cried in the manger in wordless infancy, he, the Word, without whom all human eloquence is mute." ~ Augustine of Hippo

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift." 2 Corinthians 9:15

Merry Christmas! :)

Monday, December 11, 2006

Dominionist Hype Revisited

According to Religioustolerance.org,, under their topic of: CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY, Dominion Theology derives its beginning from the beginning, Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)


ReligiousTolerance.org goes on to express that most Christians don't interpret the verse in the same way that dominionists do, Dominionists determine that Christian men are to have dominion over everything on earth, including non-Christian men. They state that most Christians interpret this verse as meaning God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom.

ReligiousTolerance.org claims that Dominionism was the only religious movement in North America which they "were" aware of that supports the idea of genocide against all people who do not follow their religious beliefs and agenda. They then mention a couple of Christian pastors from Texas who they claim support the killing of all Wiccans, but they do not give the names of these supposedly conservative Texas Pastors and list no reference to back up their claim. I spent a little time trying to find a story on this mysterious case in Texas and could find nothing, not even in a search of the claimants own site.

It continues to strike me as odd that if not for the hand wringing of liberals, Dominionism would get little notice, and in fact the whackos that are interested in subduing the world and all mankind under some theocratic system of government would likely receive little exposure and scant publicity.

Since most Christians do not adhere to Dominionistic belief why is the left treating it as though it is prevalent among conservative Christians, that it is a real threat?

ReligiousTolerance.org quotes:

"Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition (as having) criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society." ....


According to ReligiousTolerance.org, Dominionists believe that before Christ can come again in the second coming that most of the world will have to be converted to Christianity. While stating that most fundamentalists don't agree with that position and pointing out that most fundamentalists believe that much of the criteria to be met before Christ's return has been met and that the time of the second coming could occur at any time, they don't really give the clear opposing belief regarding the "Great Commission," which they do not mention at all but should be given consideration:


"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20).


Most fundamentalists believe we are to deliver that message the world over but that just as God has given us all a choice to accept Christ or not, man cannot force other men to love God or to accept Christ and only the Holy Spirit can soften the heart of an unbeliever and cause him to want to give their all to Him.

In my humble opinion, ReligiousTolerance.org goes too far when they quote Gary North, a Dominionist, from a Public Eye Magazine article:

"Gary North claims that 'the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.' North describes the 'three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement [as] the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system'." 8


The foonote above refers to an article from PublicEye.org - Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence - Part 3, and continues:


"What this means is that hundreds of thousands of Pentecostals and charismatic Christians, as well as many fundamentalist Baptists, have moved out of the apolitical camp. Many have thrown themselves into political work--not merely as voters, but as ideologically driven activists, bringing a reconstructed "Biblical world view" to bear on their area of activism.


This is probably the lasting contribution of Reconstructionism. Whether it is Operation Rescue activists called to anti-abortion work because of Francis Schaeffer's books, or Pentecostals who responded to the politicizing ministry and electoral ambitions of Pat Robertson during the 1970s and 1980s, the politicization of Pentecostalism is one of the major stories of modern American politics.

Indeed, Robertson has been pivotal in this process, mobilizing Pentecostals and charismatics into politics through his books, TV programs, Regent University, the 1988 presidential campaign, and his political organizations--first the Freedom Council in the 1980s and then the Christian Coalition...."


Yes, this is the same Christian Coalition headed, at the time of their writing by Ralph Reed, which ReligiousTolerance.org reports as having "criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society." ....

The problem I have with the quote of the PublicEye.org article is with the assumption on the part of North (as though his opinion is fact), and apparently PublicEye.org, that because Pentecostals, Charismatics and some fundamentalist Baptists have seen the urgency of letting their voices be heard in politics that it, of necessity, means that those who do so have bought into the theology of Dominionism and/or Reconstructionism, and this has been my complaint all along with the vast over exaggeration of some people, generally liberals, that Dominionism is becoming a real threat in America. In PublicEye.org's "About" section we find:

"While attacks on civil liberties can come from any direction, the political and Christian Right use skillful marketing that exploits the public’s desire for quick solutions and capitalizes on today’s hectic information flow. With clever slogans that oversimplify complex public policy issues, the Right routinely scapegoats others in pursuit of their agenda."


Clearly, they admit that they focus on the political and Christian Right, and clearly, they bring a bias with them. Though they claim:

"PRA responds with fair and accurate analysis, looking beneath the sound-bites and slogans of the Right, exposing the true goals and agendas of specific leaders, organizations and movements. We then present our analysis in ways that can help the media, advocates and educators understand and challenge the Right." (emphasis mine)


How can one consider them to offer "fair and accurate analysis" when their primary goal is to "challenge the Right?" But challenge the right when they need challenged, by all means. This is a necessary thing and an important thing, the challenge of ideas is good or at least it can be good, if it is not used as a tool to try to paint all of the Christian Right who choose to become politically active and have a voice in government as Dominionists and/or Reconstructionists, who would promote the genocide of all people, including Christians who do not agree with and support the Dominionist/Reconstructionist agenda.

I have ignored this issue for a long time. I have considered the source and found that source unworthy of serious attention but to my own detriment and to the detriment of the Body of Christ.

One of the reasons I have begun to see the importance of this issue and the importance of not allowing liberal Americans to continue to slander all conservative Christians with, at least, the suspicion that they follow a Dominionist/Reconstructionist agenda is the article I spotlighted here last: Panelists: Evangelicals can help with their portrayal in news - (BP).

Since when did Christians in America have to go on a Public Relations campaign to get fair treatment in the press!?

As Christians, Christians know that there will be persecution, and we hear of much worse persecution in foreign lands than we do in America. We have been historically blessed with freedom of religion here in this great Nation, not only Christians, but all faiths. We have appreciated it, enjoyed it and unfortunately, we have taken it for granted.

While we have not forced ourselves on anyone, we long enjoyed a majority, we long understood that as a whole our Nation understood Christianity because the majority of Americans were Christians. There was no need of public relations campaigns. Now, Christianity is being divided among itself and a house divided cannot stand.

I have been concerned for some time that progressive Christians and conservative Christians should not be opposing one another but working with one another. We harm the Body of Christ when we let politics divide us. But don't get me wrong, politically progressive Christians, as American citizens, have a right to speak out in the political arena and politically conservative Christians also have a right to speak out in the political arena. I have, in the past, extended an olive branch to progressive Christians, only to have the branch broken and thrown like a rhetorical gauntlet at my feet. This should not be so. We should be able to have respect for one another's opinions, we should be able to disagree politically but agree in spirit, in Christian love for one another.

Am I crying in the wilderness, here, when I see all around me progressive Christians and the secular world uniting against conservative Christians because they disagree politically with us?

Is it not an historic fact that Christians have ALWAYS had a voice in government and is it not a fact today that progressive Christians are trying to rally a consensus voice, a progressive Christian agenda, a consensus of thought in order to become a progressive Christian voting bloc? If you need proof of this fact simply click on this link: Christian Alliance for Progress.

Should I take on the same mean spirited, slanderous language that liberals and some progressive Christians have taken up against their own conservative brothers and sisters in Christ and start propagandizing about those evil progressive Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists?

I will not, except to make the point that if it is acceptable for progressive Christians to form an alliance and not be considered progressive Christian Dominionists or progressive Christian Reconstructionists then why is it wrong when conservative Christians merely want to have a voice in our government as well? Where are the conservative Christians demonizing progressive Christians as "Dominionists or Reconstructionists simply because they exercise their rights as citizens to play a political role in government?"

If we do not put an end to this misnomer that any conservative or Right-wing Christian who becomes politically active is trying to set up a theocracy, we are headed for much more persecution in the future...and that persecution will not rest solely on the heads of politically conservative Christians. People will begin to be suspicious of ALL those who carry the title of Christian, whether they be politically conservative or politically progressive. Who will progressive Christians blame? Only God can know, but it raises a doubt in my mind when politics trumps all, even one's own brothers and sisters in Christ whom God has commanded you to love:

"And this is his commandment. That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." 1 John 3:23

At a time when our country is divided over so many things it is vitally important that Christians put God first and unite in the cause of Christ.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Panel Meets on Evangelicals' Portrayal in News

In Panelists: Evangelicals can help with their portrayal in news - (BP), in which it is reported Southern Baptists were represented by an ethics leader, a Christian radio talk show host was in attendance, along with an ABC News Producer and former religious writers for a couple of major news magazines, there was discussion about the representation of evangelical Christians by the media.

At one point:

"Jeanmarie Condon, a senior producer for ABC News said she believes the three-fold role of ABC and the rest of the news media is:

-- “To take seriously the fact that religion is a major mover and motivator for people all around the world and that it needs to be considered carefully in our coverage of almost any story.

-- “Not to treat it like an anthropological study, but to cover it from the inside, to look at what ideas people are debating, what causes conflict within various movements, what people agree on, what’s bothering them, what people are talking about around their Sunday dinner table.

-- “And the third thing is to provoke discussion.”"

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Katherine Yurica: The Plain Ordinary Born Again Christian

When I wrote about Dominionism, Progressive Christian Dominionists, on December 4th, I raised the question of why, if the definition of Dominionism, according to Wikipedia is...:

"Dominionism...seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.

It is most often used to describe POLITICALLY ACTIVE conservative Christians WITH A SPECIFIC AGENDA. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and USE OF THE TERM IS PRIMARILY LIMITED TO CRITICS OF THE Christian Right." (emphasis mine)


...then why the term dominionism isn't used to describe progressive Christians who seek "to establish specific political policies based on religious belief" and are "politically active with a specific agenda," as well. I concluded that...:

"If politically active Christians who are seeking a specific agenda are "Dominionists" there are plenty of progressive Christian "Dominionists," as well."


...and I was right to conclude that. "Period. Dot. Bingo." (I heard that on Laura Ingraham's show the other day and I liked it.)

In the comment section of that entry, I was referred to an article written by Katherine Yurica at her website the Yurica Report, Katherine describes herself this way in the About Us section at the site:

"If someone were to ask, could two women senior citizens change the course of the political atmosphere in America today? I would say, “Not a chance.” Yet after I built this web site—after I looked at the “images for a corrupt time,” I began to believe that with your help we can change the course of history.

I’m not saying that my mother and I are special. We’re not. We are a mother daughter team. I’m the daughter—Katherine Yurica—...I’m in my sixties....Now we're* driving a 1993 Subaru I bought in April. Everything works on it! And it's got all wheel drive! It's name is Beeep! She's adjusting to life with us and learning how to counsel me on all important decisions! She'll only use unleaded fuel, and she likes to have her face and windows washed once a day! She'd like you to know that we're just plain ordinary born again Christians!...

I was educated at East Los Angeles College where I was elected the first woman student body president and earned an A.A. degree in English. I received my B.A. in English literature at U.S.C. I also attended the USC School of Law, where I was elected the first woman class president in the U.S. In 1966, I began the study of art in Mexico. I was shaken as an artist as I saw what others did not see: America was in trouble. Specialization was creating an airless vacuum where responsibility could not grow. Viet Nam began with a lie and ended with young and beautiful soldiers coming home in body bags. We learned nothing as a people." (emphasis mine)


*she and her mother, Kelly Leosis

Here's what the "plain ordinary born again Christian" has to say about America:

"Today, there’s a foul wind in the air. America stinks of open hatred, arrogance, greed and a lust for power. There’s a smug complacency brought about, no doubt by a sense of personal comfort that deludes millions into thinking that because they belong to the “in” group—hellish results will be visited only upon another class of Americans. So they live without protest, watching the Republican party become the instrument of the religious right, letting freedoms be torn away from the cloth—the very fabric of our country, and they say nothing. They will endure any hardship so long as they do not have to take a stand against the violent and corrupt among us. Satisfied with the twists and turns this country has made in the last two years, the fiddlers fiddle, while America burns its resources, its dollars, its credibility, its young men and women, and the very heart of our Constitution.

With your help, we can and will change the winds blowing in this nation. Liberty and freedom belong to all Americans, not just to a selected elite. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have spread poison all over America. It’s a worse poison than anthrax or nerve gas. Those poisons will only kill our bodies, but the poison of the right wing talk show hosts and the religious right can and does enslave the souls of a free people and destroys all that is good and pure and noble in this land."


I'm not sure when Ms. Yurica wrote her "about me" section but apparently it was before the November 7, 2006 election because clearly Americans sent a message of "protest" to the "Republican party and the religious right," because the Republican party failed to hold a majority in either the House or the Senate. Obviously, Americans exercised their liberty and freedom and the "freedoms" Ms. Yurica claims have been "torn away from the cloth—the very fabric of our country," are still being enjoyed across the country and were exhibited by the fact that American voters voted a majority of Democrats into power in both the House and Senate.

I also must question her when she implies that someone, presumably Republicans and the religious right, believe that liberty and freedom no longer belong to all Americans, as though "Rush Limbaugh and his ilk" have somehow taken that liberty and freedom away from other Americans simply by the exercise of their own liberty and freedom of speech.

Apparently, according to Ms. Yurica, if these "right wing talk show hosts and the religious right" exercise their own liberty and freedom, which she states belongs to "all Americans," they are spreading "a poison worse than anthrax or nerve gas."

Isn't it interesting that other people who exercise their liberty and freedoms are welcome regardless of their agenda, and let's face it, we ALL have them, but if it happens to be a right wing talk show host or the religious right the very active utilization of that liberty and freedom threatens to "enslave the souls of a free people and destroys all that is good and pure and noble in this land." One must assume that since Ms. Yurica works under the erroneous assumption that only right wingers can be "dominionists," progressive Christians and the left wing radio talk show hosts on our airwaves are no threat, no threat at all...nah, no poison streams from the mouths of those innocent, "plain ordinary born again Christians" or left wing talk show hosts, they are simply righteously exercising the liberty and freedom with which all Americans are blessed. As, no doubt is Katherine Yurica.

I was referred to this article written by Ms. Yurica, The Despoiling Of America, and which was noted at Wikipedia:


"Political groups and individuals that worry about how, and to what extent, dominionism influences the Christian Right include People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Interfaith Alliance, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Joan Bokaer[2] and KATHERINE YURICA[3]" (emphasis mine)


It is found directly above Sara Diamond's warning in the same Wikipedia entry:

"Sara Diamond warns, however, that while dominionism has influenced the Christian Right, liberals too often use hyperbolic language to describe the activities and goals of the Christian Right.[4]

The term "Dominionism" - with its close affiliation with notions of theocracy - can be used pejoratively to inaccurately describes the philosophical underpinnings of some individuals who identify themselves with the Christian Right. Very few of these see the Christian Right as an eschatological political movement designed to usher in the Kingdom of God; for them, the Christian Right articulates the traditional cultural critiques of paleoconservatives in the context of a worldview informed by orthodox Christian teaching.[citation needed] Moreover, many policies endorsed by the Christian Right contradict Dominionist notions. For example, the avid support of school vouchers by the Christian Right could lead to greater plurality in educational institutions, rather than a monolithic education system shaped by Dominionist ideas.[citation needed]"


Sara Diamond, also studies the agenda and methods of the "right wing" in American politics. She has written four books: Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times and Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right. The fact that she moderates her language as cited in the Wikipedia piece, alone, gives me the impression that she, at least, considers what the Christian Right tells her rather than discounting and making blanket statements without consideration of individual conservative Christians she has interviewed. Apparently, this is not so with Katherine Yurica, who, in her paper, The Despoiling Of America, has this to say about how "Dominionism" began and who perpetrated it in America:

"Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970’s, Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and abetted by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat Robertson mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists in America and turned them into an angry potent army of political conquerors.[46]

But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] Robertson, like other media preachers, used every form of communication: television, radio, books and audio tapes ...

However, it was the Pentecostals and fundamentalists who made up the core of Robertson’s audience. To a people who were largely uneducated and who often remained ignorant even if they went through college because of their fear of becoming tainted by the “world and worldliness,” Dominionism came as a brilliant light that assuaged their deep sense of inferiority. Pentecostals in particular could take comfort from the notion that no longer would the world think of them as “Holy Rollers” who danced in the “Spirit” and practiced glossolalia. This time, they would be on top—they would be the head and not the tail—and the so-called elite, the educated of the world, would be on the bottom." (emphasis mine)

I found it quite telling that Ms. Yurica describes Pentacostals and fundamentalists as "largely uneducated and who often remained ignorant even if they went to college" for whatever reason, though her chosen reason for totally dismissing educated Pentacostals and fundamentalists is that their Christianity, rather than being a guide in their lives, keeps them ignorant even if they receive higher education. Remember these so called uneducated, ignorant, fearful Christians cannot be educated due to their Christianity, while Ms. Yurika, self described as just a "plain ordinary born again Christian" CAN be a Christian and be educated too! And I'll bet she can even chew gum at the same time! Yeee Haaaw!

The problem with Ms. Yurica is that in her own zeal to promote her own political agenda and her own ideology is endeavoring to do the very thing which she accuses "Dominionists" of doing. She is an alarmist, seeing Dominionists around every corner, suspecting that every Christian who looks in the mirror sees the face of a Dominionist peering back at himself or herself. Except none of this applies to Ms. Yurica, herself, she has miraculously managed to be an educated Christian while other Christians remain ignorant, uneducated citizens "even if they went to college."

But she said a mouthful, I'll give her that, when she said:

"If someone were to ask, could two women senior citizens change the course of the political atmosphere in America today? I would say, “Not a chance.” Yet after I built this web site—after I looked at the “images for a corrupt time,” I began to believe that with your help we can change the course of history."


Bigotry takes all forms, people. Remember that. In the case of Katherine Yurica the many things she fears from the Christian Right she is guilty of perpetrating in her own liberally elite circles. Is she "changing the political atmosphere in America today?" Well, let's see...she's certainly being treated as a brilliant scholar among all the left wing web sites on the internet. She recently spoke at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles on the topic of Religion and Politics regarding the "role of faith and secular humanism" in U.S. politics and on December 4 she spoke at UCLA's Center for Social Theory and Comparative History on "Political Religion and Religious Politics."

I once asked the Curbstone Critic in a Comment:

"It appears you are trying to redefine "Dominionism" as anyone who "will hang with Bush no matter what," and that's all speculative, as well. How do we know whether any person (or these you identify as 25%) would hang with Bush "no matter what" unless he does "no matter what?" What is "no matter what?"

At any rate, I asked you a question and though perhaps I could have phrased it better, like, say, "What is your opinion of what constitutes a "Dominionist?" You have given me an answer. I wonder if you are engaging in a kind of reverse (?)McCarthyism?... Wherein any Christian who has a traditionalistic world view is suspected of "Dominionism?"




Wikipedia on McCarthyism:

"Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated."


John Stone can cry foul, but I think I'm onto something.

Let's revisit The Despoiling Of America for a moment:

"Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters....

It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside “enemy,” which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society."


Yurica tells us that "Domininionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly."

Yurica seeks to prove her suspicions by giving "credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence," and I believe that she "greatly exaggerates" the "level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed (Dominionist) associations or beliefs." It is the very essence of McCarthyism, substitute the word leftist with dominionist as I have done above and there you have it.

Moreover, she accuses televangelists of "successfully...inculcat(ing) the idea of the existence of an outside "enemy," which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society," in the process giving credence to the charge by actually becoming that anti-Christian conspiractorial voice set on labeling all conservative Christians with the loaded, pejorative, hyperbolic moniker of "Dominionist." Further, she offers no reference for her estimation of 35 million Christians who are supposedly adhering to Dominionism. I suppose we are simply to take her word for that estimation?

She is a projectionist of the highest order. Projecting widespread "Dominionist" conspiracies on a majority of "plain ordinary born again Christians" while pretending she is the innocent and immune Jesus follower herself, well-educated and savvy. How very elite.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Michael Moore Admits he Lost his Mind

Michael Moore is unhappy and is making some demands of the Democrats. Namely, he wants the troops out of Iraq and he wants them out now but that's not what what I found interesting.

In his piece found here, Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do, he writes:


"In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history." (emphasis mine)


I have long suspected that some of our nation's fringy left wing conspiracy theorists were ignorant of history, incapable of thinking straight, stupid and had lost their minds on and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but didn't want to mention it unless I had some indication of its truth. Moore seems to be confirming that for me.

Thanks, Michael!

Progressive Christian Dominionists

On September 12, Rosie O'Donnell made a statement on ABC's The View that had many Christians in an uproar:


"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."

At the time O'Donnell made this statement I, personally didn't really care. I mean, it was Rosie O'Donnell, who really cares what she thinks about Christians?

Rosie O'Donnell is known for her leftist views, no big surprise there and what with O'Donnell being a lesbian, many gay Americans are spiteful of Christians, so is Rosie O'Donnell. After all, many Christians challenge the practice of homosexuality as sinful, abnormal behavior. This fact doesn't sit well with a large portion of the gay population in America. No one likes to be told that what they do is wrong, especially when it is something they have no intention of giving up and are in the business of promoting as just another normal, healthy alternative lifestyle. People simply like to be approved and have their actions approved by other people. Even anarchists are anarchists for effect, they simply seek approval from other anarchists.

If Rosie O'Donnell lived in vacuum, I wouldn't really care what she says but the fact is she shares this view of Christians with other people and other people are thinking the things to which she gives voice.

For instance, recently on Curbstone Critic, John Stone had this to say:


"There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword."

Later, when I asked Stone:


"Is there a large percentage of the Christian population who you would consider to be "dominionists?""


and:


"What do you consider to be indicative of "Dominionism?" Clearly not all Christians are "Dominionists," so which Christians are? "


He replied...:


"Last I heard the crazies were about 25 % of America."


and referred me to this Wikipedia article on Dominionism. To quote it:


"The dominionist interpretation sees adherents as heeding a command from God to all humankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God. The terminology of dominionism, and the broad concept of the trend described by critics, has been taken from the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but anti-Dominionist critics commonly point to this passage as a paradigm that influences Christian attitudes of Western domination over the Earth and everything in it."


Wikipedia is correct in stating that "Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth," but the anti-Dominionist critics don't allow that fact to deter them in their slander of Christians.

It is clear from the Wikipedia article that those who are fear mongering about Christians wanting to set up a theocracy and force the entire world to believe in the Bible by the sword believe that Christians who voted for George W. Bush are of necessity "Dominionists," whether they realize it or not. I think it is a safe bet to assume that most people would identify Christians who voted for Bush as the "Christian Right" or "conservative Christians":


"Dominionism...seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.


It is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right.


The term emerged in relation to the Christian Right in the mid-1990s, but became more widely known due in large part to the U.S. presidential election, 2004 where the media attributed Republican wins to Evangelical voters in Red states who voted for "moral values".[1] "


I find it interesting that the term is "most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda." It is not used to describe politically active progressive Christians with a specific agenda. What would be the difference? If politically active Christians who are seeking a specific agenda are "Dominionists" there are plenty of progressive Christian "Dominionists," as well.

I do appreciate the link provided, a close reading garners this:

"Sara Diamond warns, however, that while dominionism has influenced the Christian Right, liberals too often use hyperbolic language to describe the activities and goals of the Christian Right.[4]

The term "Dominionism" - with its close affiliation with notions of theocracy - can be used pejoratively to inaccurately describes the philosophical underpinnings of some individuals who identify themselves with the Christian Right. Very few of these see the Christian Right as an eschatological political movement designed to usher in the Kingdom of God; for them, the Christian Right articulates the traditional cultural critiques of paleoconservatives in the context of a worldview informed by orthodox Christian teaching.[citation needed] Moreover, many policies endorsed by the Christian Right contradict Dominionist notions. For example, the avid support of school vouchers by the Christian Right could lead to greater plurality in educational institutions, rather than a monolithic education system shaped by Dominionist ideas"


Using the term "radical Christianity" and comparing it to "radical Islam," as in the case of Rosie O'Donnell and claiming that "There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword," as in the case of Stone is used far too often to describe the "Christian Right."

When I asked Stone:

"Do you include the growing population of Progressive Christians among those Dominionists since they are actively trying to link Progressive politics with Christian values?"


He replied:

"The Progressives in the Church are less well known, I link Mainstream Baptist in the sidebar. I just heard of a minister of a megachurch who lost his congregation because he was interested in things like poverty and peace, rather than abortion and gays."


He dodged answering the question, as is a particularly prevalent liberal reaction when they are queried in depth about their beliefs and don't wish to face their own hypocrisy. But please, if the criteria for being a "Dominionist" is a politically active Christian with a specific agenda, then progressive Christians would qualify as "Dominionists" as well, right?

On Dec. 2, The Progressive Daily Beacon Opinion Piece, written by A. Alexander, "They are the Christian Taliban - The Christiban", Alexander writes:


"Still not convinced that today's Republican "Christians" are in the same league as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan? In a moment you will be able to decide for yourself whether or not James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, and other so-called Christian leaders are any less dangerous than the Imams and Ayatollahs preaching and practicing radical versions of Islam."


The author, A. Alexander, suggests because some Christian leaders wish to deny Keith Ellison's request that he hold the Quran when he is sworn into office in January rather than the Bible that they are seeking to go against this James Madison precident:


"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" - Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731"


I don't know that I mind Ellison using the Quran when he's sworn in but if he doesn't, if he's required to place his hand on the Bible like everyone else does how the heck does that "establish a religion," "enforce the legal observation of it by law," or compel anyone to worship God in any manner?" Further, the whole premise that somehow this translates into ANY Christian becoming more of a threat to America than Islamo-fascists who want to enforce Sharia law across the entire world is just the most ridiculous premise I've heard recently. It certainly IS a "fear" tactic and an attack on a religion which, has shown no tangible indication of forcing itself on anyone by the sword. Why, they haven't even crossed Madison's lines as the author tried to suggest.

I would have to say that I believe a denial of Ellison being allowed to hold a Quran rather than a Bible goes against the spirit of historic freedom of religion in America but it is arguable that by wishing to hold him to being sworn in with his hand on the Bible, as has historically been done, somehow compels Ellison to worship a Christian God or establishes a religion to which Ellison must conform and, it is certainly arguable and quite ridiculous that it makes Christians comparable to the Taliban or equally as threatening to American life and liberty as is Islamo-fascism.

As far as I know, Rosie O'Donnell, John Stone or A. Alexander are not progressive Christians but it is and always has been interesting to me that some of the most vocal of critics of conservative Christianity have been progressive Christians.

There are progressive Christian blogs which I used to frequent and still occasionally visit in which the writers do little other than demonize and belittle conservative Christians for the very actions which they are currently promoting among their own flock. I have no problem with progressive Christians being politically active, as a matter of fact I believe that God admonishes the Christian, in his Word, to take an active role in government and politics. For that reason I would actually encourage progressive Christians to be outspoken in policy matters to bring them more in line with what they feel God would approve. Where I have a problem is them demonizing, belittling and libelously misrepresenting the majority of conservative Christians, their own brothers and sisters in Christ for doing what they, themselves, are doing. This is a sad situation for spiritual reasons.

In regards to others who use this moniker to bash conservative Christians, they too show their hypocrisy in that their complaints are exclusively leveled at conservative Christians, I suspect because they disagree politically with the actions of conservative Christians. They have nothing but accolades for progressive or emergent Christians, I suspect because they agree politically with the actions of progressive Christians.

Bottom line, this "Dominionism" talk is mostly a bunch of hogwash and those engaging in it are hypocritical at best and just outright ridiculous in their claims that Christians are threatening theocracy and are forcing their religion on anyone "by the sword."

By the way, I just named the post "Progressive Christian Dominionists" to show progressive Christians how it feels to be labeled as such. :)