LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY blueboy2000)

For about 10 months, the Every Nation article on Wikipedia has been under on-again, off-again mediation because the gangsters in Brentwood have a conniption fit over anything critical about them.   It's part of their clumsy attempt to ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are, in fact, a repackaged and revived version of Maranatha Campus Ministries, one of the most notorious campus cults of the 70s and 80s.

Well, it's on again after yours truly and a bunch of other EN refuseniks on the FactNet anti-cult message board tweaked it a bit--check out the article's history to see it (edits by "Blueboy96"--yours truly--and "Osakadan" are from the good guys).   See the talk page to follow the discussion.

In particular, EN, through its communications director, has been somewhat upset at excerpts I added in from a speech made by Jim Laffoon, their chief "prophet," at their 2004 world conference.  In this speech, entitled "To Reach and to Rule," Laffoon announced that the organization was changing its name from Morning Star International to Every Nation in accordance with a vision God had given him.  According to Laffoon, Every Nation is part of God's plan to retake the world from the devil.

My good friend "ulyankee"--the intellectual leader of the EN refuseniks--has a copy of the CD from that conference, and kindly transcribed it here.   Here are some excerpts ... ( be sure you're sitting down ... )</li></ul>

And yet, EN would have you believe that this isn't what the ministry (and I use the term very loosely here) actually believes.  Let's see, your chief prophet (and, as of a reorganization of Every Nation in 2006, a member of the International Policy Council) makes this speech, and is not only not condemned, but actually applauded for it.  Yep, you heard it here--after this speech, Rice Broocks, this outfit's then-president (now second-in-command to fellow ex-Maranathan Steve Murrell) encouraged the crowd to "thank the Lord tonight for what we've heard."

Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that we're making this up.  The best way to solve it would be to put up the actual video (which is now available at the Every Nation store) or audio online.  Unfortunately, if anyone outside of EN were to do so, it would be copyright infringement.  However, if EN Productions were to give permission for that speech's video and/or audio to be released, that would be another matter.  Or they could post it to their extensive archive on YouTube (see for yourself--here's what a search for "Every Nation" on YouTube yields).  And yet, ever since I suggested this on the article's talk page a few days ago, the silence has been deafening.  I can only assume one of two things--either EN is trying to goad us into breaking the law by putting the actual speech online, or they're just not interested in mediating the article in good faith.  Why else would they be sitting on their hands about it?

Now, why do you suppose that EN wouldn't want this to get out?  It's not just their clumsy attempt to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it is a revived and repackaged version of Maranatha.  I suspect another factor is that in late 2006, Shrub named EN's highest-profile black minister, Brett Fuller, as a member of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.  Now, you don't suppose that if this speech were to get legs that this appointment would go down in flames, do you?  I think so.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ellid)

Documentary debunked

I haven't seen the documentary (naturally), but I have to say that I agree that this is very flimsy evidence. These were extremely common names for first century Jews, and the suppositio that no other family but that of Jesus of Nazareth had members named Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (Joshua) is absurd.

This is an attempt to cash in on the Da Vinci code/Holy Blood Holy Cow nonsense. I'll find a better way to waste my time.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY 1400scale)

I just finished chapter 7 ( http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ ).

Friends, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH how vital this book is for your reading lists.

It has convinced me that the Dominionist movement is, in fact, only a symptom of something far more dangerous and destructive; that in essence, defeating Dominionism, while a vital goal, will be only one step in a greater struggle, and that is against authoritarianism itself (particularly the high and "Double-High" social-dominance expression of it). Dominionism is merely its current face; it is dependant on authoritarianism, but authoritarianism is NOT dependent on Dominionism.

I exchanged emails with Altemeyer over the weekend, reproduced here, with his permission.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY einatlanta)

Reading that excellent entry on Every Nation reminded me of the church my cousins were involved through the 1980's.

The name of the church was One Way, and their slogan was "One Way To God!" This early mega-church had a large venue in Augusta, GA, and broadcast its Sunday services on local TV. They were part of the electric church, and had a giant light-up hand over I-20 with the pointing finger up - One Way up, get it? Members were encouraged to pull their children out of public school to attend their own brand of private schooling.

Looking back on it, I now realise two of my cousins tried to escape this authoritarian environment. At the time, I didn't understand what they were going through. One escaped, one got sucked back into the same sort of lifestyle - he just didn't have the skills to leave.

Anyway, I know One Way imploded in the midst of moral and financial scandal in the early 1990's. Could anyone point me towards resources on this late Dominionist church?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kittynboi)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070225/5evangelicals.htm

Here's another article dealing with the dominionists dissatisfaction with the current G.O.P. candidates.

( The article under the cut. )

I think this is pretty important. Its not just people like us hoping the religious right will have a weak showing in 08, but the dominionists themselves seem pretty candid about the situation as well, and aren't playing up anyone. As I said in my comments to another entry, the Dominionists feel burned by the carrot-dangling tactics of the GOP establishment, and as a result they are demanding an ideologial correctness that is not to be found in any of the practical candidates. The only people who might fit their profile are people who would be lucky to come in with 5% of of the vote in the primaries.

Here are some notable parts of the article I want to comment on;

"One possibility is that Christian right activists coalesce around Brownback or Huckabee-if united, they would be formidable," says John Green, a scholar at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

BUT, this only applies to the primaries, not the general election. They COULD make Brownback or someone like that formidable in the primaries, but someone like Brownback has very dismal chances of winning the ACTUAL election, much less chance than Giuliani and McCain.

Some heavyweights within the Council for National Policy and other conservative coalitions are weighing an effort to galvanize behind a socially conservative second-tier candidate, such as Huckabee or Brownback, in an attempt to catapult him into the top tier. "There is a very strong feeling that we have to assert ourselves or we're going to end up with somebody we can't support," says Paul Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist and cofounder of Moral Majority. Weyrich says Christian right leadership is currently split "around fifty-fifty" over whether to pursue such a plan or to adopt an every-man-for-himself approach, in which activists would gravitate toward the candidate of their choice.

This goes back to the problem I touched on in my comments to the other post; the xian right can turn an election if things are tight AND they vote in a more or less unified bloc. When they fragment, however, it becomes clear that their numbers aren't what they sometimes seem. Their numbers are just enough to be formidable only in the right circumstances, and one of those circumstances is that they be unified, not divided like this.

I think they will be further marginalized by what the other wings of the G.O.P. decide to do, as I can see the business and libertarian wings EASILY going for McCain, or perhaps, Giuliani. After all, McCain has kind of been the darling of that section of the G.O.P. for a long time.

Giuliani's image as a moderate, and to a lesser extend, McCain's, will help them greatly, since the past few years have shown the public attitude towards the religious right somewhat in flux, especially since the Schiavo debacle, which many saw as an example of overreaching fueled by religious right sentiment. More moderate voters not ready to go to the left on these issues, but still nervous about the increasingly bizzare, hateful, and authoritarian elements of the religious right and their sympathizers, may find Giuliani a VERY VERY appealing alternative.

Well, thats the article and my thoughts. Just thought this might be good for generating discussion. And I hope it can cheer some people up, since I really do think that this next election will be a weak showing for the dominionists on the federal level.