Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Political Christianity has Nowhere to Hide
Charlotte Allen wrote an Op-Ed in the LA Times on August 28, 2011 titled, “Politics and Religion Can Mix”. After reading it I am compelled to write about what these denial articles are really about.
I just happen to be one of those that she refers to in her piece that has not only researched and written about the dangers of Dominionism, but lived it from the time I was a very young child. I ‘walked away’, like millions of others, from this bible-based cult theology that sets its goals on gaining and wielding political power in America and elsewhere in the world.
Does this sound fantastic? You bet it does, but that makes it no less real. It does however make it extremely challenging for those of us who are dedicated to getting the message out about just what this movement is all about. Here is my “elevator speech” definition of political Dominionism:
Dominionism today is Political Christianity based in Old Testament theology that aims to instill God in government and culture. It is a pre-enlightenment view of the world in a battle against evil.
Christians can be political but there is a distinct difference between social justice issues and imposing ones’ religious views through legislation forcing an entire country to live according to their religiously determined laws.
Allen mockingly takes jabs at this theocratic push that infested the Republican Party soundly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. She denies the existence of a political Dominionist effort and that these are simply god-fearing American candidates who have no desire to impose a theocratic government on Americans.
I am the author of the soon to be released book titled, “God, Guns & Greed: A Dangerous Path for America” written in a colloquial narrative that can be viewed as a primer about this very subject. We, who work to inform Americans about this sect are not alarmists; are not “freaked out” by a Bible-reading politician; are not looking under every bed for a theocrat. We are seriously aware and educated on the intent of Political Christianity who will not rest until Americans are informed as well.
I also am proud to serve alongside Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson V on the Board of Directors of MRFF where we work tirelessly to defend and protect the religious freedoms of our armed forces men and women who come to us seeking relief for aggressive and unconstitutional proselytizing on our military installations around the world.
MRFF now has a client list of over 25,ooo military men and women, 96% who are mainstream Protestant Christians.
What complicates this fight we are in to preserve the separation of church and state which against this creeping extremism is that we are painted by those such as Allen as being “anti-Christian”, “anti-America” and/or “anti-religion” – of which we are none of those. Our work at MRFF to protect mainstream Christians and others in the military whether religious or not, from political Dominionists who are obsessively seeking to “harvest as many souls” as they can before the End of Days is, in fact, profoundly patriotic.
They tell those of us who do not support their scripture-twisted theology steeped in the Old Testament that we are “not the right kind of Christian”. If you are not for ’em, you’re against them. Their world is one of absolutes, and they are convinced that they are the only ones on a path to salvation who have the truth, the light and the way – just ask them.
Coercive religious groups, such as those sects that are harbored under the umbrella of Dominionism, will aggressively rebrand when outed publicly as the bible-based cults that they are. This is not the first time that once exposed- they run for cover, distancing themselves from the very branding that they invented and flourished under. A perfect example of this was what happened to Hillsong Ministries in Australia in 2000.
What will make it virtually impossible for these religious extremists to go under and get out of the spotlight now is that this time they have been outed by the national media. In the past it has been done routinely by walkaways of these very sects, and though damning and inconvenient, they have always been successful at reinventing their message and their branding.
I have illustrated this tactic many times by describing the task of tracking Dominionists as much like playing ‘whack-a-mole’; as soon as they are exposed they pop up in another hole with a new look and new branding. This has proven highly successful for them until now due in part to the number of walkaways who are dedicated to revealing who they are no matter how hard they try to fly under the radar.
As a result of this higher level of scrutiny that can be truly credited to their own brazen arrogance of recent years, and most recently Rick Perry’s tent revival in Houston called, “The Response”, they are enjoying far more attention than they bargained for. This is precisely why we are going to see these contrived articles such as Allen’s and another from a couple of weeks back by A. Larry Ross on The Daily Beast titled, “Christian Dominionism is a Myth”.
Now of course, Ross doesn’t share with you in his article that he has made his living off of doing the public relations work for many of those in the Dominionist movement that may be harmed by this exposure. And Charlotte Allen is one of those beltway elites with an Ivy School education that Sarah Palin warns us about. Allen is known for writing low-information Op-Eds that never inform its readers, rather they are a pattern of spewing outrageous hate and condescension toward those she clearly considers beneath her.
I grew up in a conservative republican household and it is people like this that make politically secular republicans like my father cringe. He has had to pull his support for this Party that he was once a proud member because, unlike those like Allen and Ross, he sees the infestation that has morphed the GOP into an unrecognizable platform for theocracy.
It goes without saying that Eisenhower would not recognize this incarnation of the Republican Party, and I submit that even Ronald Reagan would not survive as a candidate today. He was far too centrist, from his immigration policies to his tax increases.
So we will see these rants continue to emerge, and the denials, the claims of ignorance and the finger pointing like Ms. Allen’s making noises of this being some sort progressive conspiracy ploy. We will see notable characters like Pat Robertson feel the need to state publicly that “I am not a Dominionist”; the same Pat Robertson that started the Christian Coalition which funded Republican candidates through the early 1990s. And we will hear explanations of innocence such as this one.
Another contributor here at politicusUSA, Hrafnkell, wrote a recent article about the extent they will go to deny association with Dominionism even though they are talking about themselves.
“…they seem to be a bit alarmed by the rise of the Seven Mountains Dominionists and their growing influence since Rick Perry’s prayer-fast in Houston on August 6.”
Because this process of condemning and rebranded has worked very well for them in the past, they anticipate the same results this time. But not this time. As they have flourished so have we and we are not naive enough to myopically focus on the Republican Party.
Are there Dominionists in the Democratic Party? Of course. But the Party that lent itself to being steeplejacked was the conservative choice of the two. The GOP was successfully targeted and consumed by Political Christianity and if it had happened to the Democratic Party my charge would be the same.
So we have arrived at a point where we no longer have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. This is not liberal vs. conservative – it is truly Freedom vs. Theocracy.
No amount of denial or vitriolic rhetoric aimed to turn this into a liberal versus conservative issue changes those facts. I often say that I am truly one of the most persistent proponents of getting the old guard Rs to please, please – take your Party back! And I am equally as ardent a defender of mainstream Christians as I see their shock and awe at the extremism in Political Christian Dominionism as well.
Kick this minority of Dominionists out and into the Party they are truly aligned with – the Constitution Party. Tear them out from under the legitimate apron strings of what once was a conservative platform that supported separation of church and state and force them to own up to what they are devoted to – a biblically based society and government.
If you are going to preach politics from the pulpit, then buck up and own it!
Related Posts :
What is Dominionism? Since the introduction of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry into the GOP Presiden ...
Two weeks ago Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent me a con ...
Nicole Nichols and I recently created "The Kryptonite Project". This effort is dedicated to exposing extremi ...
In the last two months we’ve been exposed to an extreme radical agenda by far right Republicans, many of ...
You might want to sit down before reading this. Seriously. You wouldn't think a Christian Reconstructionist ...
23 Responses to Political Christianity has Nowhere to Hide
Public Service Advertisements
Bruce
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 2:32 am
Great article. I saw this kind of thinking among Independent Baptists in the 1980′s and 1990′s. They also tended to be militia oriented and I saw a few pastors wear guns while preaching at a pastor ‘s conference I attended. They believed there was one king, one law and if government could not be changed armed insurrection was an option. (the very kind of thing we heard from some Tes Party leaders)
DannyEastVillage
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 7:03 am
The turn that Baptists have taken is bizarre–totally against their founding principles rooted in the experience of a State religion in England that oppressed them–which is precisely why they came here: so they would not have to fear government intrusion into their religious practices. But apparently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
A Walkaway
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Well, I can say that they carried their oppression with them… oppressed (often violently) the people who were already here.
When we gained freedom of religion and the right to exist in 1979/1980, the Southern Baptists were a close second to the Pentecostals in opposing it – long before they were steeplejacked (according to several elders). Then the accusations of “casinos!” soon followed.
They were also also equally aggressive about proselytizing kids, as I remember being accosted and tracted on a frequent basis by both groups (I got to know the “Chick” tracts very well).
Carla
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 1:12 am
I am very aware of what this article is talking about. I am appalled by those statements these people are making and their agenda because it’s the exact thing that the founding fathers and many others were escaping from. They wrote to constitution, including freedom of worship, precisely to prevent such rule and dominion of church over the people from happening. Be not deluded into thinking that those who say “it is not their intend to control in such a way” are in fact speaking the truth. They have an agenda. I too have been under such influence for a long time and was able to deprogram myself from cult ideology. I am well aware of their agenda and their lies. I also am afraid of so many uninformed followers who will not bother to think on their own.
Rhett
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 5:08 am
Reminds me of an article I read a few months ago: a man had stated that Christians are imposing their own version of Sharia Law upon the United States and have been since the country was founded. You’ve added much more detail to it, of course.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Excellent Leah, Good sunday to you. This sounds like the gas compan ys recent ads quoting how fracking cannot harm you beucase its so far underground, while ignoring that several small towns have been abandoned due to that very thing.
I wondered if the fundies were not getting more visibility than they wanted, or if they just thought the time was right. I also wodner what would happen to the process were Perry to be elected, who would really be in power and would we see dominionism laws come into being. At the same time how would it play with ELEC laws being written, is there a connection?
Sarah Jones
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Great work!
Reynardine
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
The silvery laughter of some of these “elitist” columnists is more offputting than the expected weaelling and denials of the malefactors themselves. Do they genuinely think a theocracy couldn’t happen, or that if it did, it wouldn’t apply to them? Are they on another planet…or on the take? Are they so rarefied that they automatically think whatever “the little people” worry about is inherently ridiculous? Are they attempting to appear clever by being contrarian? I believe there was a lot of silvery laughter like that in Great Britain in 1938. In a couple of years, nothing was funny.
DannyEastVillage
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 7:04 am
The German people still look back in disbelief at what happened in the 1930s–to say nothing of the ’40s.
A Walkaway
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 10:49 am
IMO, they may have done well in school, but they never learned to think. They never learned to analyze or recognize patterns. Most important, they never learned to LISTEN.
In fact, I wonder how they got their position as columnists in the first place – wealth from mommy and daddy bought it for them? Some other nefarious scheming?
Reynardine
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
I add, not for the first time, that every time I see the name, “Sarah Palin”, out of the corner of my eye, I read, “Stalin…”
Ingarose
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 12:35 am
When I opened my Time Magazine today. the first thing I saw was Sarah Palin. It appears that Mark Halperin and many others still want her to run.
Benny Belloes
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 10:26 am
It would be my guess that Stalin maight be a little far to the left for Half Gov. Palin
SinghX
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 12:35 am
“A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and actions of one or more movements considered to be a cult”.(G&C Merriam, 1980).
There are two kinds of apologist: one who themselves engage in cult activity and defend their practices and, those who do not belong to any group they defend. I’m not sure which one Ms Allan happens to be, but, let’s call her exactly what she is: a cult apologist.
Cult apologist are PAID very well to try and re-define the public view of the group(s)that they are paid to defend. They are PAID to be seriously intolerant toward anyone who examines or investigates these groups claiming them to be “anti-religious”, or the new take “liberal conspiracy”.
Groups like NAR, Christian Reconstructionist, Dominionist all feel that they are being pushed off the planet through orchestrated campaigns (mostly by Satan) and political agendi (mostly non-believers) via spreading of misconceptions about them and their activities…however, due to those pesky factual investigation, “misconceptions” usually wind up being true. Enter the “apologist” like Ms. Allen.
People like Ms. Allen usually accept funds to write “alternate views” that have demonized cults (those named above)in order to gain personal financial status; in other words, Ms Allan and her ilk write this garbage in order to set themselves up with funds to “research” so they can continue writing more apologist articles about these groups.
This is nothing new…”cult apologist” are hired guns; they are PAID to discredit scholars, investigative reporters, etc. as damage control. By dismissing, labeling away all these “shrill liberals”, the real conversation about the destructive agenda of the cult is never addressed.
The real issue is the exploration, both psychologically and financially of these aberrant groups who have infected democracy with their taint. This whole “god is on our side” is nothing but a ruse to misdirect–this is all about the money and the power it can buy.
That’s all Ms. Allan and the other flock of “deniers” are; hired guns setting themselves up for personal profit. The question of ethics and standards never enters their mind as long as their pockets are lined.
Calling her and her unethical friends what they really are is important.
We need to use the proper labels, keep the heat on them and let it be known who and what they are so that the public knows who and what they are fighting; cults, large, well-funded cults.
Reynardine
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 1:10 am
The silvery laughter, in short, comes from being tickled with dollar bills… or perhaps with tickets into better circles and more access. Thank you, SinghX. I love mysteries, but only if they can be solved.
SinghX
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 8:12 am
I love the thought of dollar bills tickling the pen of the apologist into “silvery laughter”…makes you wonder what the real laughter of Sister Sara sounds like!
Once “outsiders” know the internal language of these destructive cults, their coded, they/we have “knowledge”–very dangerous thing to these folks! “Outsiders” aren’t supposed to “know” the code because they’re not part of the Lord’s work! And when outsiders learn it, reveal it, they render the secret little “Wonderland” world, meaningless…that’s why we are now hearing more tight-lipped denials from cult spokes people that eventually, erupt in anger and rage.
Before, they could snip at outsiders like the “Red Queen” (or Sister Sara to lib’rul media) snapping, snipping at Alice in Wonderland (let’s say the classic Katie interview) for asking rude questions and being an impertinent young lady. Now, not so much as “outsiders” have broken the code of their code and we now know what they are really “saying”.
Someone else commented that they aren’t quite “ready” to reveal themselves, “uncloak” their fundie agenda…they’re NEVER ready because they never have enough money, but that’s another story, kiddies…
A Walkaway
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I don’t think money has much to do with their “Readiness”. I think they’re waiting for an opportune moment to force theocracy on the rest of us.
Right now, if they tried, I think it doubtful that they would get far before not only being stopped, but finding themselves destroyed as the people would be shocked awake to the horror next door and work to permanently stop them. In fact, based on reports via the MRFF and others, I think it even a tiny less likely they would try, because the military may be going through a correction – eliminating some of the abuses the MRFF has been fighting. Thus they wouldn’t be so certain of allies in the armed forces.
I think they’re going to wait until they really win an election… control not only the House and Senate, but the President too. Plus I think they’re taking the “how to boil a frog” approach. At one time, it will be too late for the “frog” and then that’s when they take the masks off.
SinghX
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Civilizations, societies fall because of a variety of things; in the past as it is now, the using up of resources has been the number one issue. However, poor decision-making and not seeing the “frog in the boiling pot” until the problem is overwhelming seems to be the problem we’re facing.
I think the Christian Nation will never be “ready” because they have to pay off so many people in so many institutions.
I also think they like their “status” as dirty under-dogs; as Ralph Reed puts it, “I want to be invisible,” he told one reporter. “I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until election night.” In other words, they always have and always will fight dirty.
Or, there is always General Pat Robertson’s approach…”The strategy against the American Radical Left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific. Bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them, bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat”…they’ll never be ready.
Lee
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 7:57 am
If people knew their history, REALLY knew their history AND weren’t WASP’s they wouldn’t likely want this witches brew of religion and politics.
Lee
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 7:59 am
>>>I’m not looking too good today>>>lol
Eric (Tennessee)
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Living here in the Bible Belt, it’s hard to get a handle on WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE (theologically). We pick up signals from our environment & try to process the information into a workable model, or “reality tunnel”. What I find most troublesome is how so many people adopt an invisible (and possibly imaginary) deity, without any inspection of any evidence & without raising an eyebrow regarding the supernatural claims being purported by members of the cult.
Geography & family relationships play a HUGE role in theology, when in fact it shouldn’t play ANY ROLE whatsoever. They tell me “it’s a matter of faith” (not family or geography)…but around here, Baptists beget more Baptists, like some sort of generational indoctrination. Terence McKenna used to say “culture is NOT your friend.”
In short, it appears that the locals believe in an benevolent omniscient dictator (of sorts) that answers prayer, performs miracles & nominates which of his “creations” deserves to spend “eternity” in a lake of fire. I’m not making this stuff up…most of my neighbors believe in this invisible alien/magician/engineer & pray to him everyday. Is this the “normal” belief of Christians throughout the country? These people also quote the Bible whenever it suits their needs but they don’t like being reminded that the Bible is PRO-slavery, PRO-genocide & PRO-child sacrifice. Is this the prevalent view of Christians everywhere? Thanks…
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
I am in Knoxville, and you are not imagining anything. These people would gladly let fundamentalists ruin their lives thinking its the return of the dinosaur pets
@blamer
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 5:57 am
Probably the motivation for backing Dominionists isn’t simply money and power.
Moderate Christians don’t need to be persuaded by compelling rhetoric of “us vs them” or “good vs evil”. They’re already there. That’s the default position.
When faced with distasteful forms of Christianity the reflexive response is “them”. They’re sinners. Savable, but that’s not my job.
It’s exactly that asymmetry in fervor that is squeezing the middle out of the democracy.
30min mp3 on Dominionism as at Sept 2011, www.pointofinquiry.org/ra...