I was going to announce today that I have been invited by the owners of www.politicusUSA.com to contribute a weekly post on Sundays relating to the slippery slope we are on as we track the Dominionist candidates headlong into 2012. Today’s article by one of their leading writers is a good way to demonstrate why this will be a great fit for both of us.
One of the reasons that this is such a boon for the work I do is not only do they have a broad and enormous readership – but they are well respected by moderate thinkers on both sides of the aisle. They have also listened to me over the years warn about this rise of political Dominionists with Sarah Palin as the Poster Gal, and rather than dismissing me (as so many have done) they have not only listened but taken it seriously.
Look no further than today’s article by PoliticusUSA author Sarah Jones on Michelle Bachmann to see how this is finally reaching the level of concern that will hopefully spawn a national debate and awareness. Here is a clip from that article, but please click the link to read in full…
Michelle Bachmann isn’t Stupid, she’s dangerous!
by Sarah Jones
“What madness is this? While Bachmann’s extremist ideology has been tempered in the House by being one of many, it’s absolutely unconscionable to think of our country being led by someone who holds these beliefs.
And yet any critics are called secularists, when in fact, Bachmann’s religion views even other Christian religions as the anti-Christ. As someone who believes firmly in the separation of church and state (and I need no better examples of the necessity of this belief than Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Scott Walker, and George W Bush), I think the time has come to challenge the language used about critics of the far right.
It’s not just atheists who have trouble with extremism; people of many faiths find religious extremism dangerous, especially when coupled with the power of government. For this reason, we need to shift the discussion about the importance of secular government back into the mainstream.
We shouldn’t allow this to be framed as a liberal issue, when it is in fact a critical issue facing our democracy that impacts all Americans. So long as we allow our ideology to separate self-labeled rationalists from all religious faith, we give power to the extremists lurking in the background with their moderate robes and wide smiles.
To this end, we need to take back the far right’s linguistic capture of the word “secular”. Secular does not necessarily imply lack of faith, but it does suggest that our government is not concerned with religion. To be for secular government should not imply that one is an “enemy of God”, and yet that is the narrative of the far right, which when lobbed at us tempts us to bite into the self-defeating fruit of a seeming extremism reaction that then allows secularism to be viewed as an extreme position held by atheists only, instead of the mainstream belief that it is.
Americans don’t wish to be governed by a religious extremist of any brand. The question is, will they see the wolf in sheep’s clothing before it’s too late? If 2010 is any indication of the general public’s awareness of this violent threat to democracy, I’m not comforted.
Jones is SPOT ON! We need an awakening, and then we need people to speak up and demand that these self-branded “social conservatives” start answering truthful questions instead of hiding under the skirts of the former secular Republican Party that was overrun and infested with this sect of Dominionism in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
These aren’t Christians – they are a bible-based cult. Period. We have seen other smaller versions of this such as Jim Jones People Temple followers. Few know that the Peoples Temple was a granddaughter church to the Assemblies of God and the New Apostolic Reformation Movement that Jim Jones was raised in;
-that Sarah Palin was raised in and still attends
- that Tim Pawlenty is a congregational member of
- and Michelle Bachmann was recruited into at a very young age
- and Scott Walker
- and Mike Huckabee
- and Jim Miller (an obscure GOP presidential hopeful)
- and Rick Perry
- and a HOST of other names who are currently IN elected positions across America and in Congress and many more who are aiming to get there.
As Sarah Jones points out in her article, Bachmann is not stupid – she IS dangerous – as are all of these radical theocrats. We need to stop dismissing them with a roll of the eyes and wave of the hand and make damn sure that we do not have a repeat of the 2010 voter turnout or we WILL be staring down the barrel of a Dominionist government.
We must take back the definitions that the radical religious right has co-opted over the past few decades and start calling this what it is. The media doesn’t have the backbone to do it, so we must take it upon ourselves to redirect this conversation for them. They will then follow…they always do.
First – STOP calling it “social conservatism”. Call it what it IS! Religious politics – and even more specifically Christian Dominionist politics. That is a very narrow group and they are a minority. Why are we letting them redefine our language and turn this into a Movement that will exclude all who are not like them – including mainline Christians as well as all other faith and non-faith citizens in the United States?
I will beat this horse repeatedly in my posts because words DO have power, and we need to re-claim their meanings. I will let you all know when to look for my Sunday posts at politicususa.com.
I would like to know what sbj's definition of "stupid" is. Sounds like it might fit him/her.
Well said. You so eloquently stated the concern (rapidly growing) that I have had for years. What is most frightening to me is that those with our view are not united. I have many friends who simply think that there is no way that a dominionist could possibly be elected. I can't seem to convince them of the importance of speaking out. One thing is for sure, the republicans are great at defining the game, and it works.
And we have but to look at the Dominionists that have ALREADY been elected to local, state and national office. It isn't about what MIGHT happen at this juncture – it is about what IS happening. Please tell them this is not future talk. All the more reason to stop this madness now. You are spot on with your assessment.
will my comment not be approved?
I always find it interesting when people post comments that are contrary to my view and then expect to be censored. I welcome others comments as long as they are not filled with vulgarity and offensive language. Thank you for sharing your views – and I will be praying for you as well, Karen.
Blessings…
I am so glad I know where I am going when my last day on earth comes. You don't know because you've not expercienced. I will pray for you.
of course if must be approved of certain language, I pray mine will qualify.
Great article.
Thank you, Anita!
Wonderful to find your site.
In the body of the story I note something which MAY be an error, but may not:
"- and Jim Miller (an obscure GOP presidential hoeful)"
I would like to take issue ! Michell Bachmann is stupid ,and that makes her Dangerous ! To say she is not stupid flies in the face of every stupid thing she has said in the past. She is the Alpha Stupid of the GOP ! And that's quite an accomplishment .
It is a fine line actually. I have said for quite some time that Palin is not stupid – she is ignorant. And that really is an important distinction. Ignorant literally means to ignore – and these zealots have been taught to absorb only what is approved in their biblical world view. Now, that is not to say that the things that come out of their mouths doesn't sound ridiculously stupid to those of us who still have our critical thinking skills firing on all cylinders! But it remains that yes…they are dangerous.
A fine line ? Both Palin & Bachmann are not just ignorant ,they are willfully ignorant ! They seem to go out of they're way to to say ,and do the stupid .Like somehow playing to they're base; The Tea party morons .Every woman who supports these two at some point must reflect on how they make women look as serious candidates for office.
P,S Sarah Palin & Michell Bachmann are both Stupid ,and Ignorant . And that is the dangerous combination we should all take notice of .
I agree with your comment about social conservatism. I consider myself a "real" social conservative." To wit: I am very private, rather quiet, I dress simply, and I am pretty traditional overall – outwardly/socially. I believe that a successful society records, studies, and preserves its knowledge base to share with future generations – a/k/a education – which is conservative in its very nature. I think that manners are important, not so much to fit in and show savoir faire, but to make OTHER people I am with feel like THEY fit in. I don't try to make a splash in society and I am more interested in quality social interactions than quantity. I love being alone. Socially conservative… am I right?
I think I am right — but with a small "r"
I notice that one of the ways that politicians and other leaders deceive the public is to ignore or trample on the big letter/small letter distinction.
Example: Frank Luntz and his buddies in the right wing meme machine have successfully conflated small-s socialism with big-s Socialism. Small-s socialism, which I define as shared sacrifice, specifically sacrifice in the form of public (government) spending to benefit weaker members of our society, is NOT the same as big-s Socialism. "Socialism" with a big s is which is what the USSR *called* its economic system, in which a vicious, authoritarian government assumed state ownership of any and all gains individuals or corporations made through creativity, innovation and industry. And we know it was miserable for the people who lived under it, and ultimately a total failure.
Creativity, innovation, and industry, and ultimately a powerful nation, WERE INDEED crippled by big-s Socialism. However, raising taxes by a few percent on millionaires (income, capital gains, estate taxes), scaling back the US war machine, and erasing corporate welfare so we can spend more on education, health care, housing, food, and other basic needs for all, isn't going to change the US into a new USSR. But because "socialism" as an idea is now identical in many Americans' minds with "Socialism" as a real, recent historical, failed economic system, conservative voters are convinced that it will.
A false choice between capitalism OR socialism. Actually, they can go together.
After reading your response, I am left scratching my head. I have some questions for you to think about. First of all, how much tax money is enough. Studies show that the large majority of tax money comes from the highest tax brackets. If more than 50% of Americans pay no taxes, how much are we going to take from the "rich"? And before you say it, I do not fall into the higher brackets. A society that overspends and depends on the rich to pay for it is doomed to fail. What we need is EVERYONE contibuting instead of just a few.
My second question is this. How can Socialism and Capitalism coexist? I believe that our nation has always been great because of the people in it, not the government. Our founding fathers belived in a limited government that was controlled at the community and state levels, not the federal government. A large and intrusive federal government was what they were fighting against.
SOME of our founding fathers believed in a limited government that was controlled at the community and state levels. Thomas Jefferson was one of these. He feared for the nation if the federalists had there way. This was one of the main causes of the break in his friendship with John Adams that occurred when they were president and vice-president.
On the other hand there were others who were in favor of a strong federal government and feared that the nation would not last without it. Some of these were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams.
Our founding fathers were not in agreement about the "final" form our government should take and thus the debates were just as heated then as now. BUT they did put in place and respect the process.
I agree with your comment about social conservatism. I consider myself a "real" social conservative." To wit: I am very private, rather quiet, I dress simply, and I am pretty traditional overall – outwardly/socially. I believe that a successful society records, studies, and preserves its knowledge base to share with future generations – a/k/a education – which is conservative in its very nature. I think that manners are important, not so much to fit in and show savoir faire, but to make OTHER people I am with feel like THEY fit in. I don't try to make a splash in society and I am more interested in quality social interactions than quantity. I love being alone. Socially conservative… am I right?
I am also a progressive, liberal, registered Democrat — and an atheist who tries every hour of every day to follow the teachings of Jesus on how to treat the elderly, the sick, and the poor, the unhappy, the weak, and my "enemies."
I notice that a good number of people who CALL themselves social conservatives are actually boorish, loutish, outlandish characters. But they believe in outlawing abortion, birth control, divorce, and gay marriage — and they believe that material and emotional selfishness are strengths rather than character flaws. WWJD, folks?
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE is the name that people with theocratic, authoritarian tendencies give themselves. But it isn't fitting for the dominionist crowd.. Some dominionists or "Social Conservatives" might *happen* to be actual social conservatives, but it is definitely not required.
Excellent! You have pointed out the power of words and how definitions can be skewed. Social conservatism actually originated in the socialist Scandinavian countries and means something quite opposite of what the religious right are attaching to it now. What it boils down to is that they are appealing to moderate conservatives by using this terminology because to be honest and call themselves zealot Dominionist fundamentalists would definitely send more moderate Republicans packing for the Independent high ground. They need those votes.
What you describe in how you live your life and interact with your fellow humans IS consistent with the teachings of Christ that they cannot embrace on any level. But they are practiced by mainline Christians who are finally waking up to the fact that these Dominionists are different from them even though they CLAIM Christianity as their foundation of faith. Great to hear from you!
I love this! Very well said Sarah. I especially like
" – and an atheist who tries every hour of every day to follow the teachings of Jesus on how to treat the elderly, the sick, and the poor, the unhappy, the weak, and my 'enemies'"
I have often found Jesus' teachings more clearly demonstrated in people who don't hold to the Christian creed. Jesus never espoused the idea of a new religion, only a way of life that demonstrated a closeness to God and love and respect for humankind. And as you stated the life philosophy doesn't even require a belief in God, only a desire to make the world a better place.
Thank you!
Good news Leah and keep up the good work. We need more voices bringing these theocrats to the American publics attention.
That's good news indeed Leah! I'm looking forward to reading & sharing your posts. I think they should be shared on every blog across the nation.
You rock, as does POLITCUSUSA, Sarah & her outstanding writers. What a perfect fit!
Mahalo!
Kat
Thank you! Your enthusiasm energizes me and we are truly moving in VERY positive directions! Stay posted…more to come