An intro to Dominionism
February 25, 2004 5:03 PM Subscribe
The Yurica Report: "News Intelligence Analysis". It seems to be an EXTREMELY leftist website, mentioned but once before. It seems inflammatory, but a few things caught my eye. How about a "Constitution Restoration Act" that would "gut the ability of citizens to sue the government or government officials by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” Or how about "The Despoiling of America", How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State...quite an interesting take on how Neo-Conservatives are taking the idea of dominionism and sprinting with it.
Inflammatory? Hell yes...but incredibly interesting nonetheless.
so what the hell? is it just a bunch of pissant congressfuckers being emboldened by the executive branch's disregard of the system of checks and balances? why the hell would you want ANYTHING outside of the jurisdiction of your country's supreme court of law?
it's hard to imagine a more conservative group of lawmakers...Sens Brownback and Miller and Rep. Everett I know by name as being loyal stooges.
man, i hate it when intelligent people do such stupid things.
posted by taumeson at 7:22 PM on February 25, 2004
it's hard to imagine a more conservative group of lawmakers...Sens Brownback and Miller and Rep. Everett I know by name as being loyal stooges.
man, i hate it when intelligent people do such stupid things.
posted by taumeson at 7:22 PM on February 25, 2004
Outrageous beyond words, and not going to happen.
But it could happen. If 5 of these guys are in the Senate now, who says there can't be 10 next term? And eventually enough to deny cloture?
There was an interesting debate in my con law class about whether members of Congress should be bound by their interpretation of the Constitution when drafting legislation - specifically, whether their oaths of office compel them to always vote against bills that they believe are unconstitutional.
I argued no, as it is the judiciary's job to take these cases and interpret them, and you don't want to discourage well-meaning legislation that's on the constitutional frontier - after all, legislators are presumably less well-versed in constitutional law than federal judges. A lot of people voted for McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform thinking that the Supreme Court would strike it down, yet they turned out to be mistaken.
But something like this - it just seems to spit on the first amendment and Article III, does it not? Is there any rational legal argument that can be made for the constitutionality of this bill? And if not, do these legislators not have a responsibility to the document which they have sworn to protect?
posted by PrinceValium at 7:55 PM on February 25, 2004
But it could happen. If 5 of these guys are in the Senate now, who says there can't be 10 next term? And eventually enough to deny cloture?
There was an interesting debate in my con law class about whether members of Congress should be bound by their interpretation of the Constitution when drafting legislation - specifically, whether their oaths of office compel them to always vote against bills that they believe are unconstitutional.
I argued no, as it is the judiciary's job to take these cases and interpret them, and you don't want to discourage well-meaning legislation that's on the constitutional frontier - after all, legislators are presumably less well-versed in constitutional law than federal judges. A lot of people voted for McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform thinking that the Supreme Court would strike it down, yet they turned out to be mistaken.
But something like this - it just seems to spit on the first amendment and Article III, does it not? Is there any rational legal argument that can be made for the constitutionality of this bill? And if not, do these legislators not have a responsibility to the document which they have sworn to protect?
posted by PrinceValium at 7:55 PM on February 25, 2004
Prince:
But it could happen. If 5 of these guys are in the Senate now, who says there can't be 10 next term? And eventually enough to deny cloture?
gah!!! read the "despoiling of america" link!!!
it talks about just that.
Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’
posted by taumeson at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2004
But it could happen. If 5 of these guys are in the Senate now, who says there can't be 10 next term? And eventually enough to deny cloture?
gah!!! read the "despoiling of america" link!!!
it talks about just that.
Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’
posted by taumeson at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2004
"And if not, do these legislators not have a responsibility to the document which they have sworn to protect?"
Not if Pat Robertson has any say in it, apparently....
posted by spirit72 at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2004
Not if Pat Robertson has any say in it, apparently....
posted by spirit72 at 8:08 PM on February 25, 2004
Americans are not so stupid.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
posted by PrinceValium at 10:35 PM on February 25, 2004
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
posted by PrinceValium at 10:35 PM on February 25, 2004
good lord. that despoiling of america article is one of the most frightening things i've ever read.
posted by centrs at 12:46 AM on February 26, 2004
posted by centrs at 12:46 AM on February 26, 2004
good lord. that despoiling of america article is one of the most frightening things i've ever read
Do note that a lot of the quotes from the 700 Club in that article are from the mid-80's, which was right before Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. It is a mitigating factor.
As taumeson mentions, Ms. Yurica is pretty far to the left, so take what she writes with a grain of salt. The information she provides is very useful, and it does seem to be the case that the religious right wants to be in power so that they can impose biblical law. I suspect the massive conspiricy she constructs sounds a little too much like the Illuminati or Knights Templar to be credible, however.
posted by moonbiter at 1:29 AM on February 26, 2004
Do note that a lot of the quotes from the 700 Club in that article are from the mid-80's, which was right before Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. It is a mitigating factor.
As taumeson mentions, Ms. Yurica is pretty far to the left, so take what she writes with a grain of salt. The information she provides is very useful, and it does seem to be the case that the religious right wants to be in power so that they can impose biblical law. I suspect the massive conspiricy she constructs sounds a little too much like the Illuminati or Knights Templar to be credible, however.
posted by moonbiter at 1:29 AM on February 26, 2004
Dominionism as referred to in the Yurica article namely:
"Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.”... Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” ... the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools" [and the creation of] ...new classes of citizens"
is quite different from dominionism as described in the animal rights link which refers to:
"...the worldview of the human supremacist: The view or belief held by one species, Homo sapiens sapiens, that it has a divine right—a God-given license—to use animals and everything else in the living world for its own benefit."
BTW, I wonder if these congressmen have ever stated their opinion on Iranian Theocracy...
posted by talos at 2:36 AM on February 26, 2004
"Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.”... Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” ... the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools" [and the creation of] ...new classes of citizens"
is quite different from dominionism as described in the animal rights link which refers to:
"...the worldview of the human supremacist: The view or belief held by one species, Homo sapiens sapiens, that it has a divine right—a God-given license—to use animals and everything else in the living world for its own benefit."
BTW, I wonder if these congressmen have ever stated their opinion on Iranian Theocracy...
posted by talos at 2:36 AM on February 26, 2004
Good post, taumeson. Inflammatory, as you say, but there are some pretty keen observations as well.
As a high schooler in the mid 80's, I supported Reagan, but I was always a little bit uncomfortable with how cozy he was with Christian fundamentalists. At the time, I assumed that it was a necessary evil to pay lip service to them in order for him to consolidate his base to get the nomination. But today, 20 years later, I continue to be shocked and appalled by the degree to which religious fundamentalists have become in the government at its highest levels. This serves no one but them.
It's my hope that this time around, even true conservatives will seriously consider voting Democratic, if only bite the bullet and get this country off of the dangerous track it is on.
posted by psmealey at 4:34 AM on February 26, 2004
As a high schooler in the mid 80's, I supported Reagan, but I was always a little bit uncomfortable with how cozy he was with Christian fundamentalists. At the time, I assumed that it was a necessary evil to pay lip service to them in order for him to consolidate his base to get the nomination. But today, 20 years later, I continue to be shocked and appalled by the degree to which religious fundamentalists have become in the government at its highest levels. This serves no one but them.
It's my hope that this time around, even true conservatives will seriously consider voting Democratic, if only bite the bullet and get this country off of the dangerous track it is on.
posted by psmealey at 4:34 AM on February 26, 2004
talos, i don't think they're that different at all. the quote from the animal rights link shows what dominionism is in the bigger sense, but if you carry that into politics, it lends itself to the usage that yurica presents.
dominionists think that it's their destiny to get america onto a religious path, and they have some divine right to do so. the quote you mention from the yurica article is certainly the AIMS of dominionism, but doesn't really mention WHY....and the why is that since everything flows from God, including justice and law, then it is their manifest destiny as his chosen people to control justice and law.
and they consider themselves "chosen" in much the same way as ancient emperors and kings did...if they're in control, it must be because God willed it, and therefore they have the right to do what God wills them.
posted by taumeson at 4:48 AM on February 26, 2004
dominionists think that it's their destiny to get america onto a religious path, and they have some divine right to do so. the quote you mention from the yurica article is certainly the AIMS of dominionism, but doesn't really mention WHY....and the why is that since everything flows from God, including justice and law, then it is their manifest destiny as his chosen people to control justice and law.
and they consider themselves "chosen" in much the same way as ancient emperors and kings did...if they're in control, it must be because God willed it, and therefore they have the right to do what God wills them.
posted by taumeson at 4:48 AM on February 26, 2004
Sorry, but repeating this part of a former post seems appropiate:
......" when Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union message, “The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity,” this apparent burst of humility, in fact, concealed its totalitarian opposite. Every totalitarian leader claims that, in himself, he is nothing at all: His strength is only the strength of the people who stand behind him, whose deepest strivings only he expresses. The catch is, those who oppose the leader by definition not only oppose him, but they also oppose the deepest and noblest strivings of the people. And does the same not hold for Bush's claim? It would have been easier if freedom effectively were to be just the United States' gift to other nations; that way, those who oppose U.S. policies would merely be against the policies of a single nation-state. But if freedom is God's gift to humanity, and the U.S. government sees itself as the chosen instrument for showering this gift on all the nations of the world, then those who oppose U.S. policies are rejecting the noblest gift of God to humanity."
posted by dreeed at 5:40 AM on February 26, 2004
......" when Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union message, “The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity,” this apparent burst of humility, in fact, concealed its totalitarian opposite. Every totalitarian leader claims that, in himself, he is nothing at all: His strength is only the strength of the people who stand behind him, whose deepest strivings only he expresses. The catch is, those who oppose the leader by definition not only oppose him, but they also oppose the deepest and noblest strivings of the people. And does the same not hold for Bush's claim? It would have been easier if freedom effectively were to be just the United States' gift to other nations; that way, those who oppose U.S. policies would merely be against the policies of a single nation-state. But if freedom is God's gift to humanity, and the U.S. government sees itself as the chosen instrument for showering this gift on all the nations of the world, then those who oppose U.S. policies are rejecting the noblest gift of God to humanity."
posted by dreeed at 5:40 AM on February 26, 2004
That is an incredibly well-written and insightful piece from FP. Thanks for reposting, dreeed.
posted by psmealey at 5:57 AM on February 26, 2004
posted by psmealey at 5:57 AM on February 26, 2004
moonbiter wrote:
"Do note that a lot of the quotes from the 700 Club in that article are from the mid-80's, which was right before Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. It is a mitigating factor."
Granted. However, one only needs to watch a few recent episodes to see that Robertson's rhetoric and ideology have not changed one bit since 1988. Additionally, one needs only to look at the statistics for TBN, the nature of Robertson's "University", and the background of the current leadership of the GOP to see that Robertson and Company have come a long way in 25 years towards reaching the goals that Yurica has outlined.
Yurica may well be a leftist, but since when should that neccessarily be grounds for discrediting her research?
posted by spirit72 at 9:21 AM on February 26, 2004
"Do note that a lot of the quotes from the 700 Club in that article are from the mid-80's, which was right before Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. It is a mitigating factor."
Granted. However, one only needs to watch a few recent episodes to see that Robertson's rhetoric and ideology have not changed one bit since 1988. Additionally, one needs only to look at the statistics for TBN, the nature of Robertson's "University", and the background of the current leadership of the GOP to see that Robertson and Company have come a long way in 25 years towards reaching the goals that Yurica has outlined.
Yurica may well be a leftist, but since when should that neccessarily be grounds for discrediting her research?
posted by spirit72 at 9:21 AM on February 26, 2004
Yurica may well be a leftist, but since when should that neccessarily be grounds for discrediting her research?
Well, I wasn't trying to discredit her, just mentioning some things I noticed. It's not her political leanings that I have any difficulty with. It's just that I suspect the passion she holds for them influences the presentation of her facts.
Like I said, her writing brings up some tantalizing things, but it just sounds a little too much like an exposition on the Great Right Religious Conspiricy for me to take them completely seriously. No doubt Robertson and his ilk are religious fanatics who would like to make America a theocracy, but I'm not so sure they are as entirely competent and influential as Yurica suggests.
posted by moonbiter at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2004
Well, I wasn't trying to discredit her, just mentioning some things I noticed. It's not her political leanings that I have any difficulty with. It's just that I suspect the passion she holds for them influences the presentation of her facts.
Like I said, her writing brings up some tantalizing things, but it just sounds a little too much like an exposition on the Great Right Religious Conspiricy for me to take them completely seriously. No doubt Robertson and his ilk are religious fanatics who would like to make America a theocracy, but I'm not so sure they are as entirely competent and influential as Yurica suggests.
posted by moonbiter at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2004
« Older Maxim '47 | Dear New York Post, Bush bites... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Cosponsors are:
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6]
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5]
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2]
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1]
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3]
Sen Allard, A. Wayne [CO]
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS]
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [SC]
Sen Inhofe, Jim [OK]
Sen Miller, Zell [GA]
But don't blame them. A lot of people voted for these asshats.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:44 PM on February 25, 2004