Clearly, it’s time for a third party.
With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional.
Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing. But because it seems so outré, getting ordinary people to take it seriously can be difficult.
[…]
And a recent Texas Observer cover story on Rick Perry examined his relationship with the New Apostolic Reformation, a Dominionist variant of Pentecostalism that coalesced about a decade ago. “[W]hat makes the New Apostolic Reformation movement so potent is its growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government,” wrote Forrest Wilder. Its members “believe Christians—certain Christians—are destined to not just take ‘dominion’ over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world.”
[…]
Dominionism derives from a small fringe sect called Christian Reconstructionism, founded by a Calvinist theologian named R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960s. Christian Reconstructionism openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy. The appeal of Christian Reconstructionism is, obviously, limited, and mainstream Christian right figures like Ralph Reed have denounced it.
I never heard of Dominionism. I am a fundamental Christian, but I don’t believe we should replace our laws with old testament laws.
Uncle Dave doesn’t know what theocracy is. Having leaders who follow a religion is not a theocracy. Under Uncle Dave’s standard, no Christian could ever be elected without turning the country into a theocracy.
For your example of a theocracy, look at countries that practice Sharia Law. The US is nothing like that.
Seen from outside, looking at our largest allied nation, the opinions and goals of the extreme right who now are so vocal are downright scary.
I agree with Benjamin. Uncle Dave is a dick, and this stuff is horseshit. He hates fundamentalist Christians. I get that. Dave is just another demagogue.
Donaldo said “He hates fundamentalist Christians.”
That’s unfair. Uncle Dave hates all fundamentalists, not just Christians.
This is getting creepy, more so because thousands..heck millions like it for no other logical, intelligent or rational reason than because religion.
Jesus wasn’t even raised by his biological father. Party animal, friend of prostitutes. Couldn’t hold down a job. Dropped out to bum around and got in trouble with the law.
Shady character all around. We shouldn’t expose our children to his liberal lifestyle.
I thought the Tea Party was a third party?
When the US declared its independence from England. It also established a government, that was NOT ruled by a Dominionist sect. Back then it was the Catholics, who believed they had the right rule over everyone else. And the everyone else who wasn’t Catholic, got the sh*tty jobs, if they got any at all. But oddy enough, most of the advances in science and law, were made by those who weren’t sitting on their ass, doing nothing, because their income and status was guaranteed by God and the Crown. So many an inventor and engineer, came to America, escaping the Dominionist English oppression they could no longer live under.
Dominionism, or whatever you want to call it. Dictators, declaring some version of divinity, so the masses won’t so readily revolt against them. And their “faithful” will die in their ruler’s defense, believing they are doing God’s work. But these who assume a divine label, for the protection of their position. Aren’t chosen of God, just because they have the nerve to say so. And is any future US president going to take the oath of office to serve everyone, if they only intend to favor the followers of their own specific religion?
Clearly its time for “NO PARTY.
You can’t have PACs without parties to influence (try to buy into.)
The Tea Party is not a political party.
It is just “sexed-up” Republicanism.
The Tea Party is to politics what “Borat” is to the human race.
Frankly, I think the whole thing is a farce. The Republican don’t plan to win. Not if these are the best they can come up with. And they know that they are scaring the crap out of everyone else, who will vote against them. Going to the extreme right, is not the way to win the majority of US voters. It’s just a way to increase the number of registered voters, by making more of them fearful enough to return to the voting ranks. Numbers which the politicians desperately need, to maintain their near-useless existence in government. No reform is going to happen, as long as everyone participates in the same old way this government does business. When ever the voting numbers fall too low, the parties pull out all the stops, and act as crazy as possible. Thus scaring millions into registering to defeat the nutjobs. But in the end, the few with all the wealth, will decide things. Regardless of who’s in office.
What? I’m having a hard time putting “sexed up” and “Republicanism” into the same sentence.
The Republicans would like to run a guy who
Won’t prosecute Wall Street criminals
Won’t prosecute Bush administration torturers
Won’t raise the record low tax rate on rich people
Continues Bush’s secret spying
Claims the right to assassinate Americans anywhere in the world without trial or conviction
Starts wars without Congressional approval
Wants to cut Social Security and Medicare
Wants to cut government services to average people
Won’t touch the bloated military budget
Has got a good schtick going where he pretends to care about average Americans
Luckily for the Republicans, that guy is already running, and his name is Obama.
We don’t need three parties, we need two parties. Obama is a moderate Republican, he should join the Republican party and give them a rational wing to combat the loony right wing. Then the Democratic party should run someone who actually believes in the old Democratic causes, like reducing the military budget, fixing the healthcare crisis, focusing on getting jobs for average Americans, cutting the huge tax loopholes for the rich, etc.
I’m an average non-rich American. I have no one representing me in Washington DC.
You can tell liberal plans by the paranoid plots they assign to others. Billionaires are funding the right-wing because George Soros and others bankroll so many liberal groups.
Now the secret plot to get to the highest levels of politics and other institutions, like a Marxist radical becoming president.
Actually, MikeN, liberals have one billionaire, Soros. The right-wingers have all the rest.
Marxist radical, eh? Read my list in #45 and tell me how that describes a Marxist radical. I think you need to lay off the Fox’n’Rush for a while, Mikey. 🙂
As long as there is a Tea Party, Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. The Republican party will destroy itself by listening to extremists and religious psychopaths. You heard it here first.
#45 Phydeau
You mean Republicans like Obama who came in with a Filibusterproof Majority in congress and reinstated the Patriot act INFULL, Did NOT close Gitmo, Relabeled the combat roops in Iraq “Peace Keepers” and declared that we had pulled out, Promised Transparency and that the Healthcare Debates would be on CSPAN instead of the backrooms where they drafted the insurance company bailout, That the Banking executives who caused the economic crisis would not get a free pass like Little timmy geithner of Goldman Sachs getting handed Treasury Secretary.
News Flash, There is one party in Washington. It’s called the Lobby
#49 I think you’re right fritz, but it’s not so bad for the Republicans because Obama’s acting pretty much like one, although the old-style moderate Republican not the new-style foam-at-the-mouth right winger.
#50 Yup he did all those things Breetai, and I agree with you that the lobbyists run things. Though the lobbyists have had a more special connection with Republicans than Democrats in the past. But now that the Supreme Court has decreed that lobbyists can spread around unlimited amounts of money, the difference between the parties might become insignificant.
God help us.
“replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy”
Harsh!
What about Usury?
Hmmmm?
Excuse me for belaboring the point, but even Jesus took a whip to the “money changers”.
Posted by LibertyLover
“We have 2/3 of our government elected via popular election, saying whatever the mob wants to hear to better their chances on election day.
If we could go back to just 1/4, things might get a little better.”
I just think that it’s funny that in your scheme “Liberty” is achieved by giving people less of a voice.
#53 Good point… they want the Christian equivalent of Shariah law. The Christian fundies and the Muslim fundies really are a lot alike. All except the body count, and with that massacre in Norway, the Christian fundies are moving up slowly but steadily. The Muslim fundies better watch their backs!
From thread article:
“defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God’s laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)”
This is what I’m always saying: the modern conservative movement is sold to adherents as a way to re-fight the Civil War.
#57 Good point… no coincidence that the most Republican part of the country now is the old Confederacy. And a candidate who publicly toyed with the idea of Texas secession is looking to be a front-runner for the Republican nomination (Rick Perry of course).
How un-American is that? Threatening to break up the Union. And he wants to be president? No friggin’ way.
#58
I think we should let them go. The blue states should write and ratify a new amendment granting regions the ability to leave.
Then it would be put up or shut up time.
If they want to become third world economies so be it. The idea that a multi-decade political based on intentional incompetence in both operation and planning CAN BE VERY SUCCESSFUL just floors me.
Who with half a brain thinks that the best guy for the job is the guy that thinks the job is complete bullshit?
#55, Tyranny of the Majority is not freedom.
#48 “Actually, MikeN, liberals have one billionaire, Soros. The right-wingers have all the rest.”
Is that so Pie Dough? Then why is Warren Buffett calling for higher taxes on the rich? Is that part of the Republican platform I missed?
Who gives a crap about the truth as long as you get a cute quip?
#60
Maybe you want to expand upon that a little? I’m a little fuzzy on how a smaller group determines it is more able to decide than a bigger group.
Isn’t liberty about freedom to make choices, even bad ones?
Can you trust the big group to entrust the small group if it can’t be trusted to make decisions for itself. The only logical solution is for the small group to entrust itself.
This is all starting to sound a little unfree. What am I missing?