Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back Viewing 0 - 20  
wyldraven [userpic]
More on the Huckabee threat to our freedom

BREAKING: Mike Huckabee member of Bill Gothard cult

Excerpt. Click Headline for full story. )
Salon: Holy Constitution!
Excerpt. Click Headline for full story. )
You should all read both articles. And if you aren't seeing Nehemiah Scudder when you are done, maybe you need to read Revolt in 2100 (buy it here, or find it in the library).

And to those who will say, "So what, the President doesn't have the power to change the Constitution", I suggest you research the The Yoo position on the "Unitary Executive", and also martial law.

Current Mood: frightened
dogemperor [userpic]
Quote of the Day

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

In light of recent events, some many of you will groan when you see the name of the author, but even the official Richard Dawkins website has posted this quote--from a writer with a rather different overall mindset than Dawkins--with approval. Enjoy!

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic, held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme--whose highest real claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.

--C.S. Lewis, from the essay "A Reply to Professor Haldane," as printed in On Stories And Other Essays on Literature

dogemperor [userpic]
Why we have Seperation of church and state and a glimpse into a Theocracy

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]navytron89)

Ok, here is something from AU to show what goes on in a theocratical controlled government.  Please note this woman wanted to change faiths from Muslim to Christian to marry her future husband and was denined it. 

Religious Freedom is something we take for granted here in America and should protect vigilantly. This also offers us a possible look into what would happen if the Fundies and Domies ever ruled America and turned us into a Christian Nation.  

Notice what would happen to this woman if she tried to go to a Sharia (Islamic) court, she faces everything from  fines to possible death. 
Could you imagine the same thing here if the Dominionist rule, segragation would come back and be forced on to the citizen of this country. 

Its LJ community like this that helps educate and inform others as well as provides us support from religious tyranny like this.   

location: Work
Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: fan running
dogemperor [userpic]
Creeping Theocracy


Official prayers in schools or at school events.
Ten commandments in courthouses and other government offices.
Handouts of (Christianist) religious literature in schools.
School field trips to religious revivals.
"Intelligent Design" in science classes.
Science and history texts being reviewed by thinly disguised religious bodies.
"Abstinence Only" as the standard for sex education.
Antiabortion terrorists being lauded and barely pursued.
"BattleCry" and other teen recruiting methods built around base emotion and violent imagery.
Pharmacists getting away with not doing their jobs because of "religious objections."
"Defense" of marriage initiatives and amendments, designed to deny rights to gays.
Gay bashing, discrimination and family rejection.
"Culture Wars" - waged by Christianists and their god warriors on the rest of us.
Police, teachers and fire department people judged to not meet "morals" standards, even if their activities are lawful.
Politicians derided as "not Christian enough".
Politicians who must parade their faith in order to get elected.
Churches and corporations teaming up to lobby.
Christianist wedge issue license plates, but no Jewish or Pagan ones.
Increasing emphasis in the corporate media on females who have lots of kids, and the whole "family friendly society" thing.
The constant crap about woman == mother even in the online world.
"Decency" laws and rules in the damnedest places.
Omnipresent Christian "witness" and Christianism in the military.
High ranking Generals making Christianist statements.
Series of books like "Left Behind".
Games where you have to convert or shoot the unbelievers - targeted at kids.
Eliminationist political blowhards and hypocrites like Coulter and Limbaugh getting serious discussions of what are essentially vicious crackpot ideas.
Bible quoting US Attorneys.
Companies that kowtow to Christianist groups like AFA.
Companies that have religious type hiring criteria.

I'm sure there's more that I've forgotten.

The point is, the military-industrial-religious complex wants to rule our nation. Are you going to sit back and let them??

Current Mood: angry
dogemperor [userpic]
Michelle Goldberg: End of Christian Nationalism?


Michelle Goldberg, author of "Kingdom Coming" has written an article at the Huffington Post about the changes this election has wrought:

In The New York Times Book Review today, John Wilson wrote a version of a piece I've been seeing a lot of lately. He argued that the danger of the Christian right has been wildly overstated, offering as examples books like my Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Kevin Phillips American Theocracy, and the documentary Jesus Camp.

"Will the evangelical Red Guards soon be storming the Museum of Modern Art? How worried should you be?" he asks, then answers, "Not very." This, of course, is absolutely correct. It also absolutely misses the point. I can only speak for my own book, but what I sought to describe was not an imminent theocratic takeover of America, but a slow, often subtle, but ultimately profound change in American life and government. As I wrote, "I want to be clear, however, that I am not suggesting that religious tyranny is imminent in the United States. Our democracy is eroding and some of our rights are disappearing, but for most people, including those most opposed to Christian nationalist agenda, life will most likely go on pretty much as normal for the foreseeable future." There is a vast distance between democracy and theocracy, and even a small shift along that spectrum strikes me as cause for concern. The writers denouncing "theocracy hype" don't engage with these incremental alterations, instead suggesting that since we're not quite slouching towards Gilead, there's nothing much to be concerned about.

It's an excellent article.

dogemperor [userpic]
maybe the molten lead wasn't necessary...

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

The Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem died today at the age of 84.

He was a man with a sense of humor everyone in this community could definitely appreciate. So here's a bit of Lem to make your evening a little more cynical:

The Christianization of the Cosmos


dogemperor [userpic]
Apocalyptic President

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

By Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian UK
Thursday 23 March 2006

Even some Republicans are now horrified by the influence Bush has given to the evangelical right.

In his latest PR offensive President Bush came to Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday to answer the paramount question on Iraq that he said was on people's minds: "They wonder what I see that they don't." After mentioning "terror" 54 times and "victory" five, dismissing "civil war" twice and asserting that he is "optimistic", he called on a citizen in the audience, who homed in on the invisible meaning of recent events in the light of two books, American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips, and the book of Revelation. Phillips, the questioner explained, "makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this? And if not, why not?"

Bush's immediate response, as transcribed by CNN, was: "Hmmm." Then he said: "The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way. Here's how I think of it. First, I've heard of that, by the way." The official White House website transcript drops the strategic comma, and so changes the meaning to: "First I've heard of that, by the way."

But it is certainly not the first time Bush has heard of the apocalyptic preoccupation of much of the religious right, having served as evangelical liaison on his father's 1988 presidential campaign. The Rev Jerry Falwell told Newsweek how he brought Tim LaHaye, then an influential rightwing leader, to meet him; LaHaye's Left Behind novels, dramatizing the rapture, Armageddon and the second coming, have sold tens of millions.

The rest behind the cut... )

The article can be found here.

dogemperor [userpic]
Not Enough Christians?

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

Yeah, because having all three branches of government filled almost entirely by Christians isn't enough.
That statement from the Daily Kos article on Mike Huckabee in response to his claim that that Christianity is not represented "nearly enough" in Washington makes me wonder who in the three branches isn't Christian. I know Paul Wolfowitz, Rep. Bernie Sanders, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are of Jewish background. I guess you could count the Catholics too, if you wanted, because everyone knows they're not real Christians. Actually, because of the popularity that kind of rhetoric, I was really surprised that the Protestant Harriet Miers was opposed by the Right while the Catholic Roberts and Alito had smooth sailing. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent. Any other non-Christians in the Executive or Legislative branches that come to mind?

Addendum: This site may come in handy, if you're interested enough, or in the future for research on the wiki.

dogemperor [userpic]
Salon Review of "American Theocracy"


Decline and fall
Kevin Phillips, no lefty, says that America -- addicted to oil, strangled by debt and maniacally religious -- is headed for doom.
By Michelle Goldberg

Mar. 16, 2006 | In 1984, the renowned historian and two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Barbara Tuchman published "The March of Folly," a book about how, over and over again, great powers undermine and sabotage themselves. She documented the perverse self-destructiveness of empires that clung to deceptive ideologies in the face of contrary evidence, that spent carelessly and profligately, and that obstinately refused to change course even when impending disaster was obvious to those willing to see it. Such recurrent self-deception, she wrote, "is epitomized in a historian's statement about Philip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns: 'No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.'"Read more... )

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]
Survey asks lawmakers if they 'accept Christ'


This article talks about a survey sent to the members of the Kentucky legislature.

Jeff Sharp, county attorney for Barren County, and a church youth group are surveying all Kentucky legislators and legislative candidates with a single question: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?"

Fifteen have replied so far -- all answering yes -- but Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, filed a resolution yesterday asking her House colleagues to disregard the survey and all "theocratic tendencies."

I wonder how they'd answer my survey question: "Have you been touched by His Noodly Goodness?"

dogemperor [userpic]
God hates Missouri

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

This weekend God made His will will unequivocably clear through the natural elements. He sent over 100 hurricanes to these sinners in retribution for trying to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. It's only logical that since God is omnipotent there must be a reason for every natural disaster. Why be omnipotent if you can't flex your muscles every once in awhile and kill the innocents of a particular region for the sins of their neighbours? Why else would He send hurricanes to Florida every time they vote Republican? My detractors will tell you there have been hurricanes and tornados hitting this continet long before the white man arrived and mucked everything up. To them I only ask, how do you know? You weren't there.

x-posted to [info]unitarians, [info]unitarian_jihad, [info]convert_me

dogemperor [userpic]


To say that the Kansas City Star missed the story is an understatement. The newspaper reported today on a supposedly modest news conference about what appears to be, oh say, a handful of people who were upset by a teeny governmental thingie. The paper somehow failed to note the most important fact: For the first time in the history of Kansas and Missouri, mainstream clergy and people of faith have come together to battle the religious right.

What they're battling is a resolution to declare Christianity the majority, state religion of Missouri.

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]
Interfaith Alliance responds to Missouri HCR 13



Missouri Resolution Endorsing Christianity Divisive And Un-American

(Washington, DC) – In response to the Missouri State Legislature’s Resolution (HCR 13) endorsing Christianity as the state’s official religion, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance released the following statement:

“This Resolution is not about religion. It’s about politics. In grade school, we are taught that in matters of faith, government must not take sides. This seems to have been lost on the sponsors of this Resolution. Surely those who have read their history know that government’s endorsement of religion is a death knell to religious liberty. They are doing no service to Christianity or to the inter-religious community of this nation.

“When reading the Missouri State Legislature Resolution endorsing Christianity as the state’s official religion, it’s hard to suppress the images and feelings I once knew growing up in the segregated South. The Civil Rights movement began because this country had sent a message to those who were different, that they didn’t belong. Decades earlier, our country did the same thing in denying women the right to vote. Today, Missouri legislators are denying equal rights and opportunities to their own residents whose religious beliefs and practices are different from those of the majority. No citizen’s rights or opportunities should ever depend on their, or anyone else’s, religious beliefs or practices, period.

“When will we finally heed history’s lessons that denying Americans their basic rights, because they are considered different is un-American? Missouri is the ‘Show Me’ state and for the sake of present and future generations, I urge the residents of this great state to show the rest of the country they will not tolerate such blatant prejudice on the part of those they chose to represent them. Tell the Christian Right, ‘You’re not going to steal our government; you do not speak for me.’ At the end of the day, if there is not freedom from the imposition of religion, there is no religious freedom.”

Date: 3/8/2006

dogemperor [userpic]
Missouri "to become officially Christian"

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

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

OK, once I recovered from the "WTF" moment, I did some research, and it *seems* (bear in mind, this is how it looks to a Brit who's not au fait with US legal process) that the actual content of the bill is a Resolution (rather than a law), and seems to be mainly concerned with the "Prayer in Public Schools" debate. But still, it seems like the sort of thing that gets flagged around here, especially since I'd be interested to hear what the implications of this sort of thing are viz. The Constitution (etc)

Also... Does this have Dominionist involvement? It sounds like their sort of scheme, but I can't find any links/connections to any of The Usual Suspects...

Current Mood: pensive
dogemperor [userpic]
Fancy that.


Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

dogemperor [userpic]
Text of the Missouri Resolution 13

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


House Concurrent Resolution No. 13



Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.


dogemperor [userpic]
It's beginning


The nullification of the Constitution, that is.


I don't even know how to begin.

dogemperor [userpic]
Protecting Pluralistic Democracy In America

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

Jewish Group Endorses Principles Supporting Pluralistic Democracy

On Monday evening, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) at its 2006 Plenum adopted a resolution on "Protecting Pluralistic Democracy In America".
It is the rights of individuals to adopt religious or scientific explanations for the origins of life, but religious theories should never be taught as science or an alternative to science in public schools.

I am looking forward to reading the entire resolution.

Posted by Howard M. Friedman on Religion Clause

Back Viewing 0 - 20