The Pink Flamingo :: What is Dominionism and How Does It Damage John McCain?

“…"All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans," explains Rushdoony. "When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed,"….”

From the SPLC

“…Rushdoony, whose book is revered by Reconstructionists as their foundational document, was also a racist. He opposed "unequal yoking" — interracial marriage or even "enforced integration" — insisting in the book that "[a]ll men are NOT created equal before God... . Moreover, an employer has a property right to prefer whom he will in terms of 'color,' creed, race or national origin." The Bible, Rushdoony wrote, "recognizes that some people are by nature slaves." In fact, American slavery was "generally benevolent" despite misguided attempts to make whites feel guilty about it. Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier, attacking the "false witness" that some 6 million Jews were murdered in World War II. In the early 1990s, Rushdoony was reportedly a member of the board of governors of the secretive Council of National Policy Board, an exclusive group of arch-conservative leaders, where he was feted on his 80th birthday by Howard Phillips (Phillips ran for president twice on the extremist Constitution Party ticket). Although most fundamentalist leaders now deny holding Reconstructionist beliefs, several — including Beverly and Tim LaHaye (see Concerned Women for America), Donald Wildmon (see American Family Association) and D. James Kennedy (see Coral Ridge Ministries) — did serve alongside Rushdoony and other Chalcedon associates on the Coalition for Revival, a group formed in 1981 to "reclaim America."…”

Lately I’ve been castigated by some conservatives who are angry with me for telling the truth. Well, here it goes again, with both barrels. If I’m going out, it is in a blaze of glory. For at least two years I’ve repeatedly stood on my Cassandra Soap Box, feeling like someone screaming into a hurricane. There is something going on with Conservatives, who are not Republican. They are trying to hijack the agenda and let everyone think they are Republican, while not having the GOP’s best interest at heart.

I think this is one of those things that doesn’t quite pass the smell test for me. I’m going to throw out information and let you be the judge. There are those who connect the dots from R. J. Rushdoony through Christian Patriots, detour to Ruby Ridge, and head to today’ religious non-Republican conservative who wants to make the world over in their vision of what God’s eyes see. I think there may be something to this. Can we prove it? The SPLC thinks so. I’m one for connecting dots, but I need to do more research. Then I found this little ditty. It’s nasty. By Jarred Taylor of American Renaissance it is titled: Do We Need More Hispanics? Yes, you read that correct. It comes from Vdare, adapted from New Century Foundation’s report. (busted link)

“…However, since most Hispanics are not white, the question becomes one of race relations, to which ordinary logic does not apply. When it comes to race, otherwise rational whites seem to believe the only consideration is to avoid being called "racist." The country therefore does not even ask whether it needs millions more Hispanics, much less answer the question honestly. If we were rational, we would weigh the pros and cons and decide that the cons have it. If the newcomers were white but had Hispanic rates of crime, poverty, illegitimacy, school failure, etc. we would tell them to stay home. But the thought of telling non-whites to stay home turns whites to jelly. This explains what otherwise makes no sense. It explains why we appear to have become dissatisfied with only a black underclass, and decided to establish a Hispanic underclass as well….”

Scroll down nearly to the bottom of the page for a 2005 commentary about Jarred Taylor.

“…Taylor heads the Virginia-based New Century Foundation. Its board of directors has included a leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor to the White Citizens Councils of the 1960s. A former board member represented the American Friends of the British National Party, a neo-fascist and anti-Semitic far-right group in England. Another board member is an anti-immigration author who has also reviewed books for a Holocaust denial journal….It's hard to say if Taylor knows any Klansmen, but they certainly know him. When conservative author Dinesh D'Souza attended one of Taylor's American Renaissance conferences, he bumped into David Duke, former Klansman and segregationist, chatting with Taylor. Another Klan stalwart is Don Black, whose neo-Nazi Web site, Stormfront.org, is a clearinghouse for extremist literature. Black gained celebrity in 1981 when he was arrested as he boarded a boat for Dominica where he and nine other mercenaries planned to overthrow that predominantly black island's government and install a white colonial junta. Potok, whose group occasional infiltrates Taylor's gatherings, sent me a photo of Black sitting at Jared Taylor's kitchen table, a beer in hand.

Maybe Taylor doesn't know any Klansmen, but before selling his house he might have to spray for them. Taylor's strategy when I confronted him was to deny things that are easily proven. He insisted American Renaissance had never published an article in which theocratic writer Rousas J. Rushdoony denounced interracial marriage as Biblically unsound. I refer Taylor to the July 2001 edition of his own magazine, in which H.A. Scott Trask calls intermarriage "racial suicide" and observes: "The Late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking. 'The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."

One of the more tendentious exchanges took place when I challenged Taylor to state whether he had published articles in "the quarterly of the British National Party."

"I don't believe the BNP has a quarterly," Taylor replied.

He's right. They have a monthly. It's called "Spearhead," and it carried Taylor's writings in the early 1990s, under his other name, Samuel Taylor. This relationship is no accident. Taylor's conferences have included speeches on white nationalism by none other than Nick Griffin, a Holocaust denier and leader of the BNP. Spearhead's editor, John Tyndall, toured the United States last year. After stops to visit David Duke in New Orleans, where Tyndall noted with disapproval the large number of racial minorities, he moved on to Oakton, Va., where he stayed at Taylor's home.

Before that, Tyndall was treated to lunch by Samuel Francis, one of the board members of Taylor's New Century Foundation.

A decade ago, Francis was fired by The Washington Times for a racist speech he delivered at an American Renaissance Conference. Since then he has busied himself as editor of The Citizens Informer, monthly paper of The Council of Conservative Citizens. The paper features regular accounts of invasions by non-white immigrants, black-on-white crime and the need for racial purity.

Those who would suggest that the Council's connections to Francis and Francis's ties to Taylor are guilt-by-association might want to consider the New Century Foundation's own tax filings for 1999. On line 80 of their IRS Form 990, Taylor's foundation lists the Council of Conservative Citizens as an organization to which it is "related ... through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc."

This was the very year that the Council of Conservative Citizens included a link on its Web site to the Free Market Party. The link was quickly cancelled when the Free Market Party's founder and sole member, Richard Baumhammers, left his Mt. Lebanon home with a pistol in hand, killed his Jewish neighbor, set her house afire, then embarked on a two-county rampage that targeted Asians, Indians and blacks. In all, five people died. Baumhammers was concerned, like those who circle Jared Taylor's planet of intellect, about the expansion of non-white races.

None of this, of course, would meet with the approval of Jared Taylor, race-relations expert, who took the pains to tell Honsberger that people should be free to marry whomever they want, and that suggestions he is a racist are meant simply to shut up anyone who wants to rationally discuss race outside the norms of safe politics….”

Part of it is based on Christian Reconstructionism:

“…Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will….”

I’d not paid that much attention to Dominionism. I was leaving it alone, planning to deal with it later, but now is as good a time as any. The perfect example of a Dominionist is Judge Roy Moore and his determination to ram the Ten Commandments down everyone’s throat, legal or not. I’ve wondered if Moore and his movements weren’t contrived. Now I’m wondering even more. Just read the list of some of his associates. They are a hate the GOP, anti-McCain rogue’s gallery.

“…That same day, a conference sponsored by Moore's Foundation for Moral Law drew a who's who of dominionists and dominionist-influenced Christian rightists, including Howard Philips, Herb Titus, John Eidsmoe, Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes and representatives from such leading Christian Right organization as Coral Ridge Ministries, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and Eagle Forum. One of the featured speakers was Rev. Joseph Morecraft, a leader of the theocratic Christian Reconstructionist movement…”

ESTABLISHING A THEOCRACY?
Public Eye (it’s liberal but I like it)

“…Led by the movement's seminal thinker, the late Rev. R. J. Rushdoony, Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life, art, education, health care, government, family life, law and so on. They have formulated a "biblical worldview" and "biblical principles" to inform and govern their lives and their politics. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly described this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's Law." It has been difficult for many Americans to accept the idea that a theocratic movement could be afoot, let along gain much influence in 20th century America, but Robert Billings, one of the founders of the Moral Majority once said, "if it weren't for [Rushdoony's] books, none of us would be here."…”

MY ANTI CALVINIST RANT
This you know what is all hard-line Calvinist. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, but I don’t want this stuff rammed down my throat. This is the same mind-set that started the British Civil War. We’re talking Oliver Cromwell who, in my mind, is probably the 4th worst person in the whole history of the world. I took great care, when I was touring Westminster Abby to stomp on his grave-stone. What Cromwell did to England was pure evil.

Maybe it’s a family thing. My regular readers know I am chronic, addicted genealogist. One of the fascinating things I discovered was the #2 cause of death in both sides of my family, after old age, is death by execution, battle, or beheading – primarily at the hand of Cromwell and his minions. This good Episcopalian has a gag reflex when faced with this stuff.

I’m an Episcopalian, deal with it. And no, we aren’t the tools of the devil. We’re just good Christians who love the Lord. Our beliefs are stated in the Nicean Creed. I don’t want to hear about how bad we are.

From what I gather, and I am not a theologian, Dominionist Theology is basically a Christian version of the Taliban.

“…An example of Dominionism in reformed theology is Christian Reconstructionism, which originated with the teachings of R.J. Rushdoony in the 1960s and 1970s. Rushdoony's theology focuses on theonomy (the rule of the Law of God), a belief that all of society should be ordered according to the laws that governed the Israelites in the Old Testament. His system is strongly Calvinistic, emphasizing the sovereignty of God over human action and free will, and denying the operation of charismatic gifts in the present day (cessationism); both of these aspects are in direct opposition to Kingdom Now theology….”

In addition this information is in keeping with what I’ve been seeing.

“…Calvinism as the basis for personal regeneration that is required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture, Theonomy applying the general principles of Old Testament and New Testament moral law and case laws in the appropriate family, church and/or civil government, Postmillennialism, the Christian Eschatology belief that God's kingdom began at the first coming of Jesus Christ, and will advance throughout history until it fills the whole earth through conversion to the Christian faith, The presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til which holds there is no neutrality between believers and non-believers, that the Bible reveals a self-authenticating world-view and system of truth, and that non-believing belief systems self-destruct when they become more consistent with their presuppositions, (Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, pp. 145-6, 97, 315-6) and Decentralized social order resulting in minimal state power…”

TO BE FAIR
This is what Chalcedon believes. You decide.

“…We believe that the source of godly change is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not revolution by the violence of man. As God regenerates more and more individuals, and as they reorient their lives and areas of personal influence to the teachings of the Bible, He employs them to advance His kingdom and establish Christian civilization. We believe that God's law is the divine pattern of sanctification in every area of life, but it is not the means of justification; man is saved by grace, not by law. The role of every earthly government�including family government, church government, school government, vocational government, and civil government�is to submit to Biblical law. No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God' sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.

A guiding principle of Chalcedon, in fact, is its devotion to maximum individual freedom under God's law. Chalcedon derives its name from the great ecclesiastical council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which produced the crucial Christological definition of Jesus Christ as God of very God and Man of very man, a formula directly challenging every false claim of divinity by any human institution: state, church, cult, schools, or human assembly. Christ alone is both God and man, the unique link between heaven and earth. All human power is therefore derivative; only Christ may announce that "All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18). Historically, therefore, the Chalcedonian creed is the foundation of Western liberty, setting limits on all authoritarian human institutions by acknowledging the validity of the claims of the One who is the source of all human freedom (Galatians 5:1). Consequently, we oppose top-heavy, authoritarian systems of government which are, by definition, non-Christian. We advocate instead a series of independent but cooperative institutions and a highly decentralized social order….”

I have a very real problem with this stuff. I’m sorry. This is not what I believe – that government should mirror religion. I’m afraid I’m going to need to come down on the side of separation of church and state. Way too much. The way this reads to me – is abject anarchy save for the Taliban of Calvinist theocracy.

“…Misconception 2: Political Dominion Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.

It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means — education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.

This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God's holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.

We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens' children.

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind….”

“…Misconception 5: Persecution for Religious Beliefs  Because we believe that the state is an inherently religious institution, and because we believe that a Christian state should enforce the law of God appropriate to the civil sphere, some have accused us of endorsing state persecution for religious beliefs. This is wrong. Biblical law does require criminalization of a few sins like murder, kidnapping, theft, and child sacrifice; but these are not religious beliefs; they are violent practices that assault the fabric of society. The Bible does not permit the state to persecute or suppress any religious belief, only certain dangerous, socially destructive practices .

Further, Biblical civil law is designed for a covenanted society, just as Biblical ecclesiastical and familial law are: Paul's epistles, for example, are written to Christian churches, not to Satanic synagogues. Biblical law governing the family is designed for Christian families. Likewise, Biblical civil law is created for a covenanted, Christian society. This is why God dictated His legislation (including civic legislation) to ancient Israel after He had entered into covenant with her (Ex. 19). Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them….”

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONIST – CONSERVATIVE DEMANDS
If you look at this list, give or take a little, it’s just plain scary. These things are one in the two. The thing that interests me is the fact that “Moderate” Republicans and those who not agree with their thinking are to be marginalized.

‘…Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent, and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as follows: The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state.
In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence.

Environmentalism - Obviously if you believe that a divine entity has given the Earth to you for you to use as you will, you will be angered at those who seek to stand in your way. Further, environmentalists have a view of the future that conflicts deeply with the apocalyptic visions of Reconstructionists, leaving (they believe) no room for Jesus, the kingdom, and so forth. Taken together, it is easy to see why Reconstructionists hold a special animosity towards environmentalists.

Civil Liberties - Liberty and freedom are not terms that appear very frequently in Reconstructionist writings, since so much of Reconstructionism is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom.

Death Penalty - Since the Hebrew scriptures have many offenses whose punishment is death, Reconstructionists are staunch supporters of the death penalty. They feel the death should also be given to adulterers, blasphemers, heretics, homosexuals, prostitutes, witches, abortionists, idolaters, etc., as proscribed by the Old Testament.

Slavery - There is debate among Reconstructionists about whether or not slavery should be reinstituted, but the fact that the debate even exists is telling in and of itself. Women in particular would have their status reduced to that of a slave.

Evolution - Since evolution flatly contradicts a strict interpretation of the creationist story told in Genesis, they are in deep opposition to it.

Income Taxes - For Reconstructionists, income taxes are antithetical to Old Testament teachings, and are therefore to be eliminated. Further, lowering the income received by the government will hasten a crisis which, they believe, will allow them an opportunity to replace much of the existent federal government with a more theocratic state.

Moderate Republicans - More traditional Republicans have a view of the state much different from their Reconstructionist counterparts, and are therefore sidelined by much of the Republican elite.

Israel - The nation of Israel ties heavily into Reconstructionist thinking, being the place they believe Jesus will first physically appear after his return. Further, since they believe that the Jews are ultimately doomed, they give little thought to the humanitarian violations visited upon the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Their only concern insofar as Israel is concerned is to make sure it continues to exist as a state until the Rapture comes.

Iraq - Iraq (Babylon) also plays a large role in their eschatology, supposedly destined to become a neutral player in world affairs, and a focal point of the events that occur during the end-times (Link). They are therefore staunch supporters of the war in Iraq, and are hypothesized to have been influential on Pres. Bush in his decision to go to war….”

HOWARD PHILLIPS AND RUSHDOONY’S VIEWS
Ah, yes, the Phillips - Constitution Party connection.

"...The USTP was formed in September 1992 by Howard Phillips, a Harvard grad and onetime full-fledged member of the GOP establishment. Phillips had served as an assistant to the chairman of the RNC, chair of the Republican Party of Boston and headed the President's Council on Youth Opportunity and the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity during the Nixon administration. In an interview published in the National Review in 1996, Phillips (who didn't return several phone calls requesting an interview for this story) described his disillusionment with the anti-poverty Office of Economic Opportunity this way: "At OEO I was confronted with evil, pure and simple ... I was not there very long when I discovered that OEO was the war room for those that were trying to overturn what had once been America ... I had a moral obligation to fight these things, the funding of extreme-left causes."

In '74, Phillips split from the GOP and formed the Conservative Caucus, a conservative grass-roots organization. Around that time, Phillips converted from Judaism to Christianity, becoming a disciple of "Christian Reconstructionism" and a man named Rousas Rushdoony.
The USTP sprang, in no small part, from Rushdoony's somewhat extreme views on religion. In 1973, Rushdoony had published the "Institutes of Biblical Law," an 800-page treatise that preaches that "every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion. Every law-order is a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare."As part of his 1987 "God and Politics" trilogy for PBS, newsman Bill Moyers interviewed Rushdoony, who argued that society was falling apart and called for a new justice system based on literal interpretations of the Bible. This, Rushdoony explained, would mean capital punishment for anyone guilty of adultery, sodomy or homosexuality. "This is what God requires," Rushdoony said.

Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionism has influenced "mainstream" political and religious figures, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, as well as fringe members of the political-religious right, like Randall Terry, the founder of the militantly anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. That's why it shouldn't have been surprising when Falwell said last that the antichrist is alive and well and is probably a Jewish male. The fringes of the political right -- and the political left, for that matter -- are alive with insanity, and the closer pols get to them, the more overlap you see in their views.

Rushdoony's political views are even more alarming. He seems to think that Africans never had it so good as after they'd been taken in shackles to America. "The private ownership of slave labor in the American South has been the subject of extensive distortion," he wrote in "Politics of Guilt and Pity." "The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form. Much is said about the horrors of the slave ships, many of which were very bad, but it is important to remember that slaves were valuable cargo and hence property normally handled with consideration." He also belittles the Holocaust. "Did the Nazis actually execute many thousands, tens, or hundred thousands of Jews?" he wrote in "The Institutes of Biblical Law." "Men to whom such murders were nothing had to blow up the figure to millions. The evils were all too real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning them." Phillips once toasted his mentor, saying, "Much of the energy in the home school movement, the Christian school movement, the right-to-life movement, and in the return of Christians to the political world, is directly traceable to Dr. Rushdoony's work." And over Labor Day 1992, Phillips founded the USTP, based in a large part on Rushdoony's work. To date, though, the USTP devotes its platform to the more acceptably loopy planks of conservative populism -- abolishing the IRS, opposing any and every gun law and total isolationism....”

CHRISTIAN PATRIOT MOVEMENT
Is there a connection?

“Christian nationalists are interested in nothing less than total political "dominion" over liberals and what they characterize as their "Satanic and humanist" culture. "This movement is not a religious movement but rather a nationalist political movement that cloaks itself in religion," Ms. Goldberg said recently in San Antonio on the last leg of her book tour. "It is not synonymous with evangelical Christianity and it does not make up a majority of Americans or evangelicals," she said. "It is just that it makes up the most highly organized of the personalities and social groups that populate the new Christian nationalist movement illustrating "the way people and ideas that were once very radical have become mainstreamed with hardly anyone noticing."

For example, she reports that David Barton, founder and president of the Texas-based WallBuilders organization, noted for his books asserting the founders of the United States did not believe in separation of church and state, addressed at least two white supremacist Christian Identity meetings in the 1980s. In her book's opening chapter, Ms. Goldberg traces the origin of the current Christian right to the largely anti-Semitic and racist militia movement of the 1980s, which arose in farming states after tens of thousands of families lost their farms as a result of declining prices and rising interest rates. While Christian nationalism has its base in Protestant evangelical churches, Ms. Goldberg notes it has begun to make common cause on issues such as abortion and gay marriage with the Roman Catholic church it once regarded with suspicion. Her primary focus, though, lies in the organizations working in the evangelical community she characterizes as "proto-totalitarian," many of which she says have been largely invisible to mainstream political observers and liberal activists because they operate in large churches such as Coral Ridge Presbyterian.

Ms. Goldberg said she was led to write her book after writing an article for Salon.com about a faith-based clinic in the San Francisco Bay area that purported to assist gay men in becoming heterosexual. "What I began to discover," she said, "is that the clinic was just one of many similar faith-based social service organizations springing up around the country that formed a kind of social parallel reality." Part of that parallel reality, she observes, is being promoted through the work of young people from home schools who are funneled into Patrick Henry University and from there to influential internships in Washington. That reality is also formed, she says, by the movement's easy acceptance of "premillenial dispensationalism," or the idea that true Christians will be "raptured" into heaven before an inevitable apocalyptic war that will soon return Jesus to earth…”

NOT IN THE REAL WORLD?
This stuff doesn’t exist in the real world, right? I know I had the same though. No one can seriously believe this do-do. Well, see for your self. There is a bottom line. Catholics and Mormons are going straight to hell. I guess we Episcopalians are right in there with you. Good company if you ask me! I see the word “Puritan” and I want to shudder. This is scary you know what. They tore England apart with a Civil War. I guess that’s what they want here.
Reformed Covenanter
Department of Christian Defense
Just for Catholics
A Puritan At Heart

THE NRO VERSION OF THE STORY
To balance, I’ve provided a NRO version of the above. My big complaint about all of this – and why some conservatives are so angry with me for saying so – good decent people aren’t doing their home work. Stanley Kurtz wrote:

“…If “Dominionists” try to force all Americans to pay church tithes, or call for the execution of blasphemers and witches, I will oppose them. But that is not the danger we face. The real danger is that a growing campaign of hatred against traditional Christians by secular liberals will deepen an already dangerous conflict. The solution is to continue our debates, but to change their framing. Conservative Christians cannot stop complaining of exclusion and prejudice until cultural liberals pare back their own excesses. Let’s stop treating honest differences on same-sex marriage as simple bigotry. Let’s stop using the courts as a way around democratic decision-making. Let’s stop trying to criminalize religious expression. Let’s allow Christians to establish their own institutions of higher learning. And let’s stop calling traditional Christians fascists. It would be nice if the folks complaining about “Justice Sunday” addressed these issues as well….”

The problem is these Christians aren’t traditional. Sure, it’s the primitive, hate-filled Christianity of our (and my ancestors in New England) founders that brought us the Salem Witch Trials. But – it isn’t that faith. This is something entirely different. I’ve studied enough about my Puritan New England ancestors to know that what Chalcedon teaches and what “Reformed Covenanter” followers are embracing is NOT the religion that brought an emphasis on girls and women being as well educated as their male counterparts. That religion instilled a stiff-necked pig-headedness that lead to abolition. (I have a Puritan ancestor who was one of the first abolitionists in the whole darn New World). It also eventually morphed into Woman’s Suffrage. The Civil Rights movement was born out of it. The Puritanical Calvinism we have here is the same thing that lead to Charles II losing his head.

Public Eye

“…Naturally, people look for explanations for how it has come to this. There are many factors for this trend, just like any other important trend in history. But many Americans, regardless of their political orientation, seem genuinely baffled and obsessed about one or another factor in the rise to power of the Christian Right: they look to issues of funding, mass media, megachurches, dominionism, and so on. It is all of these and more. However, following the logic of Occam's Razor, that the best explanation is usually the simplest, I offer this: the Christian Right social movement, fueled by the growing influence of dominionist ideology, gained political influence because it was sufficiently well organized and willing to struggle for power. And now they are exercising it.

While most dominionists would say they favor the U.S. Constitution, and merely seek to restore it to the original intentions of the founders, in fact, their views are profoundly anti-democratic. The dominionist worldview is not one based on the rights of the individual as we have come to know them, but on notions of biblical law. Among the political models admired by the likes of D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and Reconstructionist writer Gary North is the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a government ruled by the intensely Calvinist Protestant sect, Puritanism. In the dominionist worldview, the biblically incorrect (and those of other religious views) are second-class citizens at best. While few would admit to the clear implications of Christian nationalism, dominionism in the short run necessarily means, as a matter of theocratic public policy, reducing or eliminating the legal standing of those who do not share their views….”

Is there a Sun Myung Moon connection? I think there is. You be the judge. Is there a connection to John Tanton and today’s hysterical anti-immigration supporters. I think there is. The problem is getting there to prove it is wading into conspiracy chic do-do. I want one simple little piece of information. If I had that, I could be like James Cagney on the water tower – top of the world. Until I get that one confirmation I can’t do what I want to do. After floundering through this mess today I am more sure than ever there is a connection.

Robert Perry wrote:

“…Moon's rhetoric has turned stridently anti-American, another problem for the Religious Right and its strongly patriotic positions. On May 1, 1997, Moon told a group of followers that "the country that represents Satan's harvest is America." [ Unification News, June 1997] In other sermons, he has vowed that his victorious movement will "digest" any American who tries to maintain his or her individuality. He especially has criticized American women who must "negate yourself 100 percent" to be a receptacle for the male seed. [For details of Moon's speeches, see The Consortium, July 28, 1997]

Still, despite his controversial remarks, Moon continues to buy friends on the American right -- as well as among African-American religious figures -- by spreading around vast sums of money. The totals are estimated in the billions of dollars, with much of it targeted on political infrastructure: direct-mail operations, video services for campaign ads, professional operatives and right-wing media outlets.

Through The Washington Times and its affiliated publications -- Insight magazine and The World & I -- Moon has not only showcased conservative opinions, but he has created seemingly legitimate conduits to funnel money to individuals and companies he seeks to influence. In the early 1980s, for instance, The Washington Times hired the New Right's direct-mail whiz Richard Viguerie to conduct a pricy direct-mail subscription drive. The business boosted Viguerie's profit margin.

Another element of Moon's strategy is to approach a conservative leader when he's financially down. Moon quietly infuses money and gains the leader's gratitude. Again, Viguerie is an example of that tactic. When he fell on hard times in the late 1980s, Moon directed more business his way and had a corporation run by Moon's lieutenant, Bo Hi Pak, buy one of Viguerie's properties for $10 million. [ Orange County Register, Dec. 21, 1987 / Washington Post, Oct. 15, 1989]

With Moon's timely intervention, Viguerie survived financially and remains an important fixture in conservative political campaigns to this day. When Iran-contra figure Oliver North ran for the U.S. Senate in Virginia in 1994, his principal direct-mail contractor was Viguerie's company, according to Federal Election Commission records.

For some smaller enterprises, Moon-connected business can be a huge percentage of total income. That was the case with Falwell's benefactors, Dan Reber and Jimmy Thomas, who ran a small company called Direct Mail Communications of Forest, Va. According to court records, $5 million -- more than one-third of its income in one year -- came from a direct-mail subscription drive for Moon's Insight magazine.

At times, Moon's penetration of conservative ranks has raised red flags among Republicans. In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered "an alliance of expediency" with Moon's church. Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefitting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.

Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it [the New Right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well." Leach's news conference was broken up when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying. (Norquist is now head of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent ally of House Speaker Newt Gingrich.)

For its part, The Washington Times dismissed Leach's charges as "flummeries" and mocked the Ripon Society as a "discredited and insignificant left-wing offshoot of the Republican Party." [WP, Jan. 6, 1983]

Despite periodic fretting over Moon's influence, conservatives continued to accept his deep-pocket assistance. When President Reagan and Oliver North were scratching for support for the Nicaraguan contras, The Washington Times established a contra fund-raising operation. Moon's international group, CAUSA, also dispatched operatives to Central America to assist the contras.

By the mid-1980s, Moon's Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that "without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father [Moon]."

Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America's democratic form of government. "History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him," Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. "That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."

As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the right-wing American Spectator, Moon's church attracted U.S. conservatives by advocating a muscular anti-communism. "There is little else in Unificationism that American conservatives will find compelling," Ferguson noted -- except, of course, the money. "They're the best in town as far as putting their money with their mouth is," one Washington-based conservative told Ferguson. [AS, Sept. 1987]…”

My problem with Perry is he is no friend of the Bush family and will do anything to take them down. BUT – I do trust George Archibald.

THE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE VOTE
This is why I think Bob Barr is going to have a run for the non GOP conservative vote:

“…s I've stated repeatedly concerning the Ron Paul campaign, the real value in this election is education. There is no more important objective than to unplug conservative Christians from the Matrix of Republican statism; and without the Religious Right, the GOP is hopeless--with the exception of conservative Christians rallying behind Dr. Paul. To that end, I do hope the Constitution Party understands the priority of this educational mission and will use Baldwin's nomination to gain ground in that area. Chuck has dedicated himself to alerting Christians to the present threats to our national sovereignty, so I'm hopeful he'll continue with that thesis in this election.

My point is that we should be concerned as much for future elections as we are the 2008 presidential race. Therefore, the future belongs to those that can build a sizable constituency, not those that can produce a candidate. As Ron Paul's campaign has demonstrated: what's the true value in a great candidate, if he has no widespread support? In the case of Ron Paul, the value lies in his ability to create the grassroots of a future mass constituency of freedom-loving conservatives determined to reverse the course of imperialism. That's why the Ron Paul campaign already represents the single greatest political victory in the last 100 years. Not because he won a nomination, because he hasn't. What Dr. Paul has achieved is the creation of a new (or old) type of American citizen. He's launched a new political constituency that is radically motivated, and therefore, will only grow as the U.S. crises deepen. In short, if you thought 2008 was a ride, wait until you see 2012 when the new constitutional conservatives number in the millions. Lastly, as Doug Phillips recently noted: "The nomination of Chuck Baldwin means that Christians have the option of voting for a biblically qualified, God-fearing, Constitutionally informed and committed candidate for President." I concur. In the likelihood that Dr. Paul is unable to secure the GOP nomination, Christians will still have an opportunity to vote their conscience, and rest in the fact that they used their vote to support the Scriptural definition of a godly leader:…”

And their immigration stand:

“…The new era of immigration is nothing like the past. New immigration is not seeking acclimation, or the submission to American values, tradition, and history. America is not the beacon of freedom that drew immigrants in the past. Today's immigrants come primarily for economic reasons and the benevolent welfare state (I don't know how many times you have to say this to a liberal, but if you subsidize something, you get more of it). Is there hope? I think so. Why? Because God is large and in charge! Humanly speaking, there is hope also because of the growing population of godly Christian families that are multiplying rapidly. Better yet, a more astute generation of Christians is also growing. I've met several young men and women now in key positions in Christian ministries, media, civil service, and publishing that were homeschooled--even more that were trained in a Christian school. When you've got a generation filled with God's Spirit, the Scriptures, and vigorously trained in all forms of academia, you've got a new aristocracy arising. These new (multiplying) Christian leaders will be central to overseeing the swelling populations of non-Americans.

The X Factor is always faith. If we do not succeed in convincing our pathetic politicians to control immigration, then we shall make dedicated Christians out of all that cross our borders. If such agendas as the creation of a North American Union are underway, Christians will subvert the centralized social order. It's just in our spiritual blood to do so. We have a tendency towards turning the world upside down…”