Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back Viewing 0 - 20  
dogemperor [userpic]
Did Justices' Catholicism Play Part in Abortion Ruling?


From WaPo
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A13 <- note how far back in the paper this was

Is it significant that the five Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the federal ban on a controversial abortion procedure also happen to be the court's Roman Catholics?

It is to Tony Auth, the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. He drew Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wearing bishop's miters, and labeled his cartoon "Church and State."

Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Walters hashed out the issue on "The View," with O'Donnell noting that a majority of the court is Catholic and wondering about "separation of church and state." Walters counseled that "we cannot assume that they did it because they're Catholic."

And the chatter continues, on talk radio and in the blogosphere... )

Current Mood: cynical
dogemperor [userpic]
A quote and a definition


In an article posted today on Talk To Action, writer Frederick Clarkson talks about candidate Jamie Raskin standing up to an overtly Dominionist legislator in the Maryland Senate:

Jeremy Learming, writing at the blog, Wall of Separation, tells the story of the Raskin's testimony (which was covered by The Baltimore Sun) at a hearing in the Maryland legislature on proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Raskin, a professor of Constitutional Law at American University had been asked to testify by Equality Maryland, a marriage equality organization. More dramatic than his tesitimony was his exchange with Republican State Senator Nancy Jacobs who said, "As I read biblical principles, marriage is intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief, ... For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principles."

Raskin replied:

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution," Raskin said. "They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

That quote is now on our front page, in the Wiki, and should be spread far and wide, because it is the quote which will take the Dominionist view of the law out of the picture, properly used.

Clarkson goes on to define Dominionism:

In a recent issue of The Public Eye, I noted that dominionism is a term used by outside observers to understand a complex yet vitally important trend. For people trying to figure out if a conservative politician, organization, or religious leader is a "dominionist," I noted three characteristics to listen for:

... Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

To that last, it should be noted that dominionists believe that the Bible as an absolute, infallible source of God's word, and elevate it above even Christ and God. They worship the Bible. This is a critical difference, and when examining religious groups, their mission statements (or creeds) should always be checked to see where the Bible falls in their regard. If the Bible is first, then you are dealing with dominionists. Every change in the law they wish to force upon our government is driven by Scripture.

Go read the article. And its links. It's quite interesting.

dogemperor [userpic]
You know, I used to *like* Ohio.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]nycscribbler)

Democrat for Senate: Death penalty for practicing 'gays'

"Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs – we should have laws against immoral conduct," Keiser told WTOL-TV in Toledo.

Keiser, 61, says he's running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

The trucker, who hails from Fremont, Ohio, says there needs to be more adherence to biblical values in government, business and education – something he claims DeWine is not promoting.

"I believe that the United States has been moved in a Godless direction by the courts," he told the Sandusky Register. "To get good men on the court, we need good senators."

And I looked up the site, just to see if it was some bizarre prank. Then I Googled for a confirmation. Either it's a very elaborate prank or he's on the up-and-up.

This article gives his address, if you want to TP his house or toss the flaming object of your choice.

dogemperor [userpic]
Found in a Google search ..

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]lihan161051)

While browsing around for links on "bibliolatry", I found this one, which linked to another one that contains the following quote:

In the early decades of this century, conservative evangelicals took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of church and state to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organized crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in our nations history.

If there's a better argument for keeping in mind the law of unintended consequences, I can't think of it at the moment. And this is a very good example of what can go horribly wrong with moral legalism in general ..

dogemperor [userpic]
Inspired by two posts from THIS site.


Dominionist Christians are those who take the bible as literal Truth and legal authority, just like the Sadducees of Christ's time. . .
Read more... )

dogemperor [userpic]
Real Live Preacher talks about Homosexuality


Here is a pair of articles by Real Live Preacher that I thought people here might enjoy and be able to use. Real Live Preacher is the blog of Gordon Atkinson, the ordained minister of Covenant Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas. In these articles, Rev. Atkinson takes the religious right to task for their treatment of homosexuality and homosexuals.

    I Have No Title For This
    A Look at the Bible and Homosexuality

Some excerpts I especially enjoyed:

"Do you smell the reek of this injustice? It is a stink in the nostrils of the very living God. We are dressed in beautiful clothes and we wear pretty smiles, but we stink of this blasphemous hypocrisy.

"Every church in America - mine not excepted - has a cellar like this. We must shovel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, because every chapter and book we ignore must be burned to warm our comfy pews.

"We should all agree that none of us are able or willing to follow all the teachings of scripture. Let the one who is obeying God's word ask for detailed scriptural explanations from others.

"In my book, that settles the argument, and there is no reason to go further. However, if you are determined to hold homosexuals to a higher standard, demanding detailed explanations for why they do not obey minor parts of the Bible while all of Christendom tramples on the very heart of scripture, move on to part two:

Read the articles, there's plenty more where that came from, including direct refutation of common biblical arguments against homosexuality from a Christian biblical scholar..

(Snagged from [info]chris_king_2005 on [info]gsa_lj)

dogemperor [userpic]

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]wyldraven)

Casting Stones: An Army of radical Christian Reconstructionists is preparing a campaign to convert conservative fundamentalist churches. By David Holthouse of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Interesting, if somewhat sarcastic, analysis of Mark Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation.

Full Text behind the cut )

More about the Chalcedon Foundation, in their own words, can be found here and here.

Be certain to have a few grains of salt ready should you delve into the Chalcedon web site.

x-posted to my personal journal.

dogemperor [userpic]
Bible Idolatry: Placing the Bible above God


If you examine the mission statements of many Christian religious organizations, you will discover two distinctive types. The first utilizes the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed to acknowledge their beliefs. This creed usually starts with "We believe in the Father [or God] Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth..." and goes on from there.

The second type states that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, and places God and Christ second and third on the list of beliefs. Here's the first three statements National Association of Evangelicals statement of belief:

# We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God,

# We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

# We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

The Mainstream Baptist site goes into detail about the 'demotion' of Christ in their articles of belief.

It might be interesting to note that many of the religious organizations that place the Bible above God also are promoting the Dominionist agenda, too. So, when you examine a church or religious organization, check out their statement of belief. If they place the Bible above God and Christ, reconsider your involvement with them.

dogemperor [userpic]
What the heck is "Scripture Saturation"?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]whumpdotcom)

Recently spammed by an outfit calling themselves “Safe Ministries,” advertising materials based on “Scripture saturation.”

No idea what that is, but it fired off a whole bank of alarms.

dogemperor [userpic]
MoJo article


Susan Jacoby's Mother Jones article is a real study of history and what happens if you ignore it. I highly recommend it. But it was the last paragraph that really got my attention:

Handed a tabula rasa by a public uneducated in civics, right-wing revisionists are free to ignore not only the strong anticlerical views of so many of the nation's first leaders but also their loathing of all entanglements between religion and government. "Oh! Lord!" Adams complained in 1817 to his old friend and rival Jefferson. "Do you think that a Protestant Popedom is annihilated in America? Do you recollect, or have you ever attended to the ecclesiastical Strifes in Maryland, Pensilvania, New York, and every part of New England? What a mercy it is that these People cannot whip and crop, and pillory and roast, as yet in the U.S.! If they could they would." [emphasis mine -ed]

If they could they would. Wherever and whenever they could, they did—and that is why the revolutionary generation bequeathed the unique gift of a secular Constitution to future Americans. Here is the real history lesson, straight from the pens of the founders, that ought to be taught—and is too often ignored—in every American public school.

If you read the words of the hard core center of the Dominionist movement, you will see their almost gleeful desire to restore "Gods Law" to the land- basically following and enforcing the worst of the 613 laws of the Old Testement. They will kill homosexuals, adulterors (especially women) children who are 'willful', and pretty much anyone they perceive as an 'enemy of God's law'. They are already practicing on their own children, are raising up a generation who will think nothing of whipping and punishing their fellow humans in the name of God.

It's really ironic that nearly 300 years ago, people left Europe to escape that (or establish their own mini-cults) and deliberately created a Constitution that walled that kind of cruelty and legalistic interpretation of the Bible out of our laws. Now, people are chipping away at that wall- bulldozing it, even, and are champing at the bit to reinstate the 'whip and crop, and pillory and roast' as the law here. This isn't a 'might' kind of objective for the Dominionists, it's a 'will'- if they take over entirely.

If you get a chance, read Susan's book, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism". It's an eye-opening history lesson.

dogemperor [userpic]
Been Lurking

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]inkedgeekfreak)

Hey, I joined a while ago and have just recently jumped in the fray with comments.

I am not sure if pointing this site out is on topic, but I found it interesting, scroll to the bottom and look at the note to ministers. Jesus would be ashamed.

dogemperor [userpic]
Dominionism as cult/coercive religious group; an analysis (part 1 of 2)

I had originally intended this as a reply to this post but due to the length of the post I am actually going to set up a dedicated post for this (also so, hopefully, it doesn't get lost in the clutter).

Dominionism, both in and of itself and in the religious and other groups associated with dominionism, share enough characteristics with groups traditionally considered coercive groups (or "cults", in the case of coercive religious groups) that the groups associated with dominionism, and likely the entire dominionist movement itself, are better seen as a coercive religious group *in and of itself* rather than as a strictly political movement. It is my belief (as a walkaway and as an informal researcher) that it is likely impossible to fully understand dominionism (as a political movement) unless one sees the political aspects of dominionism in a larger context of a general coercive mindset existing in the "parent" groups of the dominionist movement.

In this post, I will directly compare lists of coercive tactics used by four groups active in research of coercive groups (FACTnet's summary of research by Dr Margaret Thaler Singer, info from Rick Ross Institute, info from Steven Hassan's "Freedom of Mind", and lists from the International Cultic Studies Association (a group, ironically, that had to change its original name, the American Family Foundation, due to confusion with the dominionist group American Family Association)) in comparison with coercive tactics used in the dominionist community at large and with specific aspects of the dominionist community in particular.

Comparison 1: Coercive tactics of dominionist groups as evaluated per Dr Margaret Thaler Singer's checklists )

Comparison 2: Coerciveness of dominionist groups per Robert Lifton's models of thought reform )

Comparison 3: Rick Ross's list of coerciveness as compared to dominionist groups )

Well, as the next two lists are fairly long, there'll be a part 2 to this. Part 2 will actually focus entirely on the BITE model (due to the fact the BITE model is a *very* extensive checklist).

(EDIT: Cleaned up the formatting. And hoooo boy, did the formatting need a cleaning!)

dogemperor [userpic]
Sno-cones in Hell

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]squidflakes)

According to this article


The Catholic Church is now stating that some parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. Could this be RCC's attempt to wrest worshippers from the Dominionists?

dogemperor [userpic]
Christian Reconstructionist Roy Moore officially announces candidacy for AL governor

Several people mentioned this on other forums, and Nagisa specifically called it here, but now it's official:


Roy Moore--known Christian Reconstructionist and golden-boy of the dominionist movement--has officially announced his candidacy for governor of Alabama.

a brief history of Roy Moore's hanky-panky )

There is already discussion on multiple forums--one which I think needs to turn into an organised campaign--to specifically see which churches and dominionist groups (with 501(c)3 non-profit status, such as how AFA and Focus on the Family are organised) are endorsing Roy Moore over the next few months and start filing reports to the IRS and state tax authorities of illegal politicking to have the tax exempt status of those groups revoked. (As Roy Moore is pretty much adored over and advocated/cheerleadered on by almost every dominionist group in the country--including a few specifically set up for the cheerleading of this idiot--it's possible that *most* dominionist groups could end up losing their tax exempt status if groups work in an organised fashion to monitor and report.)

EDIT: A fairly full history of Moore's misbehaviour is here.

dogemperor [userpic]
Good article from Raw Story re Bush and dominionism

The following story from RawStory is a pretty good discussion on Bush and how dominionist ideology can be construed as a form of idolatry.

(It's good backgrounder for those not so familiar with the issues around Bush and dominionism, at any rate)

dogemperor [userpic]
Interesting ramifications...


September 14, 2005

... )
So why, you might ask, did the Ontario government, that politically correct legislature, consider a proposal to accept Sharia law? It cited the cause of multiculturalism.

In 1991, the Ontario government passed the Ontario Arbitration Act, which allowed Jews and Christians to take civil and marital cases before religious arbitration. Rabbis could then adjudicate fights over inheritances and priests over disputes between parishes. Muslim groups in Ontario, quite understandably, wanted the same rights.

Ontario had thus backed itself into a corner. It was forced to either undo the Arbitration Act or give Muslims the same latitude as Jewish and Christian mediators. In fact, the discussion about including Sharia law brought protests from Orthodox Jewish women who claimed the Arbitration Act took away some of their rights. ... )

dogemperor [userpic]
A book of possible interest...

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]scarcrest)

Contempt: How the Right Is Wronging American Justice by Catherine Crier. She's written a piece today at the Huffington Post explaining her reasons for writing the book, and how it's becoming ever more important that we confront the radical right's attempts to toss out American legal tradition in exchange for biblical law.

Figured the people here would be interested in hearing about the book. It's good to see someone in a national media role recognizing this threat for what it is and identifying it as such.

dogemperor [userpic]
What fundementalists need for their salvation


This brilliant and devastating article from Orion Magazine takes a sharp look at today's religious supremacists. Here are some excerpts:

Having damned myself in what we might call "anti-evangelical circles," I'd like to qualify that damnation by stating what the word "evangelical" suggests to me.

Religious laws, in all the major traditions, have both a letter and a spirit. As I understand the words and example of Jesus, the spirit of a law is all-important, whereas the letter, while useful in conjunction with spirit, becomes lifeless and deadly without it. In accord with this distinction, a yearning to worship in wilderness or beside rivers, rather than in churches, could legitimately be called evangelical. Jesus himself began his mission after forty days and nights in wilderness. According to the same letter vs. spirit distinction, the law-heavy literalism of many so-called evangelicals is not evangelical at all: "evangel" means "the gospels"; the essence of the gospels is Jesus; and literalism is not something that Jesus personified or taught.

Nor need one be a Christian for the word "evangelical" to apply: if your words or deeds harmonize with the example of Jesus, you are evangelical in spirit whether you claim to be or not. When the non-Christian Ambrose Bierce, for instance, wrote, "War is the means by which Americans learn geography," there was acid dripping almost visibly from his pen. His words, however, are aimed at the same anti-war end as the gospel statements "Love thine enemies" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." And "Blessed are the peacemakers." Bierce's wit is in this sense evangelical whether he likes it or not.Read more... )

dogemperor [userpic]


do you guys know this website?

The Coalition on Revival (COR) is a network of evangelical leaders from every major denominational and theological perspective who share a vision for and a commitment to worldwide revival, renewal, and reformation in Church and society. COR's basic mission is to encourage and help the universal Church of Jesus Christ to obey God's Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission. COR's founding director is Dr. Jay Grimstead who also helped found the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which wrote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy & the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. (Click on the titles to go to the Chicago Documents.)

Check out the "documents" section of the site.

dogemperor [userpic]
Interview with Judge Roy Moore

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]deridetenebras)

At CrooksandLiars.com:


(availabe in Quicktime or WindowsMedia)

wherein he addresses the Treaty of Tripoli and America's "Judeo-Christian heritage"

Back Viewing 0 - 20