Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biblical Law in the U.S.?
#1
(Originally posted at FCN by me.)

Over the past few years, there has been a concerted push by self-professed, conservative Christians to breach the barrier between Church and State in the U.S. At first blush, the battles seem to be isolated incidents of concerned citizens and sympathetic politicians seeking to put America back upon "the right moral track". They include, but are not limited to (in no particular order): (1) Terri Schiavo; (2) the Constitution Restoration Act; (3) the current resurgence of the Evolution/Creationism argument; (4) the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment; (4) placing the Ten Commandments on federal property; and (5) the FCC's cracking down on "indecency". The language used by media pundits is that America is seeking a return of its "moral compass", and I remember hearing a CNN commentator say "America didn't vote against John Kerry; America voted for moral values" upon the night of the 2004 Presidential Election.

And yet, when observed a little more closely, the same names and faces keep appearing in all these debates, either in the foreground or linked by close association in the background. Coincidentally enough, practically all of them are neocon Republicans. Yet very few of them practice the morals they preach at every opportunity, and the same could be said of the televangelists whipping up public support at their collective side. Scandal upon scandal has emerged of late, from Tom DeLay gleefully fleecing Native Americans and other constituents while using a children's charity as a front for his activities, to the Gannon/Guckert debacle, to the erstwhile Mayor of Spokane, Jim West, to Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. To this ignoble list (which could fill reams of paper if complete) we must add George W. Bush, who lied without shame to Congress to justify the invasion of Iraq that has cost thousands upon thousands of lives.

These are the guardians of America's supposedly newfound "moral compass". Just what destination do they have in mind for this political Pilgrim's Progress, one has to wonder, and why do they insist the law must reflect the ideals they claim to hold so dear but do not follow themselves? Exactly what is going on here?

Perhaps we should start by examining the nature of the control being sought, followed by reasons why.

Part 1 -- Which Biblical Law?

A. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties

America's first encounter with Biblical Law happened in December,1641. New England saw the introduction of the first body of law in the form of The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. It was composed by a Puritan minister (the son of another Puritan minister) named Nathaniel Ward. Most of the Liberties is primarily based upon English common law, but let us move to "Capital Laws":

Quote: 1.
(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)
If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.

2.
(Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)
If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.

3.
(Lev. 24. 15,16.)
If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.

4.
(Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)
If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.

5.
(Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)
If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.

6.
(Ex. 21. 14.)
If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.

7.
(Lev. 20. 15,16.)
If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.

8.
(Lev. 20. 13.)
If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.

9.
Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)
If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.

10.
(Ex. 21. 16.)
If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.

11.
(Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)
If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.


Note that the Biblical Law upon which such punishments are based is that of the Old Testament.

B. The Texas 2004 Party Platform

At the Republican Party of Texas website, one finds the rather benign-looking Preamble to the Texas 2004 Party Platform. The entire document can be downloaded as a PDF file.

There is plenty in the Platform to raise the hackles of an astute reader. The language is overtly moralistic, yet there are legal loopholes and deliberate vagueness (therefore open to broad interpretation) built in. An excellent analysis of many sections of this document is provided at Theocracy Watch. What is interesting is that all Texan Republicans are expected to demonstrate agreement with all provisions of this document.

The Platform states, "The Party understands that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition." But it doesn't follow that laws similar to the "Capital Laws" are the ultimate goal, does it?

Let's see...

The Theocracy Watch website has a comparison of the Texas 2004 Party Platform and a Christian-school textbook called "America's Providential History". The two fit hand in glove. Interestingly enough, the authors of the have this to say about Puritanical law: "The Puritans are prime representatives of this "spirit of dominion... They recognized the scriptural mandates requiring Godly rule, and zealously set out to establish that in all aspects of society."

Puritan law, as evidenced by the Liberties mentioned above, was heavily weighted towards the Old Testament end of Biblical Law. The Mayflower Families website shows how the Liberties were soon expanded to punish an even greater range of crimes in accordance to Old Testament doctrine, along with a detailing of what constitutes heresy and the acceptability of torture:

Quote:13 If any child, or children, above sixteen years old, and of sufficient
understanding, shall CURSE, or SMITE their natural FATHER, or MOTHER; he or they shall be put to death: unles it can be sufficiently testified that the Parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the eduction of such children; or so provoked them by extream, and cruel correction; that they have been forced therunto to preserve themselves from death or maiming. Exod. 21. 17. Lev. 20. 9. Exod. 21. 15.

14 If a man have a stubborn or REBELLIOUS SON, of sufficient years & uderstanding (viz) sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shal his Father & Mother being his natural parets, lay hold on him, & bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court & testifie unto them that their Son is stubborn & rebellious & will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shal be put to death. Deut. 21. 20. 21.

15 If any man shal RAVISH any maid or single womã, cõmitting carnal copulation with her by force, against her own will; that is above the age of ten years he shal be punished either with death, or with some other greivous punishmet according to circumstances as the Judges, or General court shal determin. [1641]

[...]

Heresie.
ALTHOUGH no humane power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therfore may not constrein them to beleive or professe against their Consciences: yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith, and destruction of the soules of men, ought duly to be restreined from such notorious impiety, it is therfore ordered and decreed by this Court; That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or mainteining any damnable heresie; as denying the immortalitie of the Soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins, or shal affirm that wee are not justified by his Death and Righteousnes, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the moralitie of the fourth commandement, or shall indeavour to seduce others to any the herisies aforementioned, everie such person continuing obstinate therin after due means of conviction shal be sentenced to Bañishment. [1646]

[...]

Torture
It is ordered, decreed, and by this Court declared; that no man shall be forced by torture to confesse any crime against himselfe or any other, unles it be in some Capital case, where he is first fully convicted by clear and sufficient evidence to be guilty. After which, if the Case be of that nature that it is very apparent there be other Conspirators or Confoederates with him; then he may be tortured, yet not with such tortures as be barbarous and inhumane.

2 And that no man shall be beaten with above fourty stripes for one Fact at one time. Nor shall any man be punished with whipping, except he have not othewise to answer the Law, unles his crime be very shamefull, and his course of life vitious and profligate. [1641]

And then we come to the "Statement of Purpose" of the National Reform Association, publishers of The Christian Statesman magazine:

Quote:1. Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents.
2. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.
3. The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

The NRA's "Operation Potomac" page contains the following information:

Quote:Concentration for this operation centered on the Department of Justice and the White House. In the morning, our team met with Attorney General John Ashcroft's policy advisors wherein we discussed various issues, and distributed copies of Explicitly Christian Politics and Messiah the Prince along with copies of The Christian Statesman and a framed proclamation which outlines the NRA's positions for Christian civil government. This was a heartening exchange with men who professed faith in Christ and were positively animated by the material and mission of the NRA especially as an asset to public policy.

In the afternoon, we visited with White House staff in the Old Executive Building, adjacent to the West Wing of the White House. Again, we were encouraged that another professing Christian was ensconced in an office (Public Policy and Liaison) that was once used by the Clinton administration to promote militant homosexuality. In addition to our materials, we set up communication for ongoing dialog between the NRA and the Bush administration. It is our hope to meet with both the President and the Vice President within the year.

On Capitol Hill, follow up was conducted with House Majority Whip, Rep. Tom DeLays office to set up a time for an NRA biblical worldview seminar to be conducted at the Capitol. This will be oriented especially for the staffers and policy makers. Follow up was also conducted with Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette, Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, Indiana Rep. Mark Souder, and Ohio Rep. Pat Tiberi.

Other sites mention that DeLay was supposed to be assisting in a "biblical worldview" conference in Washington, though apparently this never manifested or was merely a rumor.

The Vice President of NRA, William O. Einwechter, had an article featured in the March 1999 edition of the Chalcedon Report entitled "Stoning Disobedient Children". He writes:

Quote:Severe Disobedience
Second, the problems associated with this son are severe. This is not the case of a child who has failed to do his chores, spoke back to his parents, or even committed a serious act of disobedience, but of a son of dissolute character who is in full rebellion to the authority of his parent--she holds them and their word in contempt. Thetext says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious" (vv. 18, 20). Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. It is used in the Old Testament of a wild, untamed heifer (Hos. 4:16); of a immoral woman who has cast off restraint and indulges in lust (Pr. 7:11); and of Israel as a stubborn people who will not submit to God's authority (Ps. 78:8; Is. 1:23). The word "rebellious" means, literally, to strike or lash, and is used of those who contend against authority and refuse to heed their words. The "rebellious" individual lashes out in contempt against those who have authority over him verbally, and perhaps even physically. In light of this, it is important to note that the law of the covenant prescribes death for anyone who strikes his parents (Ex. 21:15) or curses his parents (Ex. 21:17). There is, therefore, reason to suppose that the son in this case law has broken the law of the covenant in one or both of these ways. The parents also describe the character of their son as being a "glutton" and a "drunkard." These sins are put forth as examples of a life lived without restraint.

In the case of such rebellion and riotous living, and after all attempts at discipline and control have failed, the parents are to bring their son before the magistrates for judgment. If the magistrates concur in the parents' estimate of the situation, they are to order the men of the city to stone the rebel with stones so that he dies (vv. 20-21). The purpose to be served in the execution of the rebellious son is to "put evil away from among you" and that all will "hear and fear" (v. 21).

Source Watch describes the Chalcedon Foundation, publisher of the Chalcedon Report (in which the above article appeared), as follows:

Quote:The Chalcedon Foundation promotes the idea that "historic, orthodox, Biblical Christianity should govern every area of thought and life. Chalcedon's cause is simple, radical, and comprehensive. It admits no division between the 'private' and 'public' spheres. If God is sovereign and Jesus is Lord, this divine sovereignty and Lordship is designed to engulf every aspect of human existence-not just the private and 'spiritual,' for instance."

The Foundation was created by the late Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony (d. Feb. 2001) who served as foundation president. The foundation was primarily funded by millionaire California banker Howard Ahmanson.

The Chalcedon Foundation is quick to deny that their goal is imposition of Biblical Law upon all of secular society in its Credo. Yet in the words of Rushdoony himself:

Quote:St. Paul was talking about the cultural mandate. Before the fall, the task was less complicated. Now man needs regeneration. Thus, the first step in the mandate is to bring men the word of God and for God to regenerate them. The second step is to demolish every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ. The world and men must be brought into captivity to Christ, under the dominion of the Kingdom of God and the law of that kingdom. Third, this requires that, like Paul, we court-martial or "administer justice upon all disobedience" in every area of life where we encounter it. To deny the cultural mandate is to deny Christ and to surrender the world to the devil.

R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 724-725.

Rushdoony (now deceased) is considered by many to be the father of Christian Reconstructionalism and Domionism (the latter term apparently coined by Rushdoony's incessant use of the word "dominion" in his religious works). While the Chalcedon Foundation declares itself to be Calvinist, Rushdoony dismissed significant portions of Calvinist doctrine to be heretical. It cannot be denied that Rushdoony is an intriguing character -- on the one hand, he asserts the necessity of establishing the dominion of Christianity by right and by might upon the world and denounces religious tolerance as both sinful and heretical; on the other, he makes occasional statements that "pagan" law is fine because it allows Christians to work the will of God behind the scenes. Certainly Rushdoony had great influence upon modern Christianity and also upon the Republican neoconservative movement, and Pat Robertson often refers to Rushdoony's philosophy in comparing non-Christians to "termites" requiring "godly fumigation".

A few more memorable Rushdoony quotes to keep in mind before proceeding to the next section:

Quote:One faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state . . . Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies. (p 100) [R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law]

Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristrocracy. [R.J. Rushdoony, Reconstructionist theologian, from _The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism In America_, published by ADL]

All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They are thus idolaters, and are, in our generation, when our world is idolatrous and our states also, to be objects of missionary activity. They must be called out of their idolatry into the service of the living God. [R.J. Rushdoony, Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982]

C. Christian Reconstructionalism/Dominionism/Theonomy

A concise rundown of these Christian movements can be found at Religious Tolerance.org, along with the names and principal beliefs associated with them. A longer summary with numerous hotlinks can be found at Wikipedia. And as Tatiana recently posted, The Yurica Report provides extensive, chilling coverage of this arm of Christian extremism. A must-read!

But then, perhaps we should let them speak for themselves:

Quote:Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost [...] As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

--D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries (blessed GWB prior to his running for President and remains an advisor of Federal policies)


Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God's rule.
--George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51.

And we will win. We are not looking for a place at the enemy's table where we can negotiate with him. We are looking to kick the table over in the name of Jesus Christ and take over!
-- Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue)

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
--Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.

The words spoken by people such as these and Rushdoony are in direct contradiction of the official stances of their associated organizations and movements. Just as various articles published by The Chalcedon Report are in conflict with its assertion that they do not support the overthrow or undermining of secular institutions or the repression/execution/persecution of heretics/nonbelievers -- which category, it should be noted, includes the majority of persons who belong to the various sects of Christianity. Democracy is blatantly labeled as an enemy to God's Law, and therefore it must be destroyed in order to make way for the New Christian World Order.

D. The struggle for power within Christian conservatism

Of course, there is resistance to this hardline view of future history as seen through a Dominionist lens. Even Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition (and a person of great influence in the Bush/Cheney campaign team) has realized he helped create a monster that has gotten out of control and has spoken out against the increasingly Dominionist slant of the religious right. Many moderate Christians disagree with the emphasis on Mosaic law as opposed to that of the New Testament, and there is serious concern over the racism and condonement of slavery found in much Dominionist rhetoric. It's not fair to consider all Christians who ascribe to evangelical or fundamentalist beliefs as agreeing with the Domionist vision of Biblical Law, as it represents a relative minority when compared to the bulk of Christian sectarian belief.

How, then, did they get so powerful?

Part 2 -- Fight Club

A. The Council for National Policy

Personally, I never heard of this organization until yesterday. There's a reason for it -- the CFN is extremely secretive. A la "Fight Club", members do not mention their involvement with the CFN, and membership is via invitation only. Source Watch describes it as "a secretive forum, formed in 1981, for leading US conservative political leaders, financiers and religious right activist leaders." It's most currently known (2002) roster, in addition to the list of prominent former members and speakers as found on the Source Watch page, is most illuminating. Daily Kos has a comprehensive list of known CFN members broken down into groups. Highlights include Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bob Jones III, Ralph Reed (who claims he resigned from the CNP), Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Oliver North, Grover Norquist, and Moonie Lt. General Gordon Sumner Jr.

John Ashcroft is a former member of the CNP, as is the late Rousas J. Rushdoony (remember him?).

From "Behind Closed Doors: Who Is The Council For National Policy And What Are They Up To? And Why Don’t They Want You To Know? published at the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website:

Quote:The CNP’s current executive director, a former California lawmaker named Steve Baldwin, has tried to downplay the organization’s influence on powerful state and national lawmakers. He has remained cagey about the CNP’s goals, insisting it is merely a group that counters liberal policy arguments.

In many ways, Baldwin himself exemplifies the CNP’s operate-in-secret strategy. As a political strategist in Cali­fornia in the early 1990s, Baldwin was one of the key architects of the “stealth strategy” that led to Religious Right activists being elected to school boards and other local offices.

“Stealth candidates” were trained to emphasize pocketbook issues such as taxes and spending. But once elected, they would pursue a Religious Right agenda, such as demanding creationism in public schools. A spate of the candidates won election in Southern California in the early 1990s, but most were later removed by the voters when the true agenda became apparent.


Such deception seems to be patently un-Christian behavior, does it not? There is convincing evidence that this "stealth strategy" does indeed have non-Christian origins, but more on that later. At any rate, it would appear that the Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists hoisted the conservative Christian movement by its own petard, using "stealth strategy" against their less extremist brethren. But then, the CNP was founded by Reconstructionalist Tim LaHaye (of the "Left Behind" book series fame and founder of his own School of Prophecy), and considering other decidedly Dominionist and Reconstructionalist members of prominent standing in the CNP, perhaps it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Just how influential is the CNP in the political and policy arenas? Suffice to say that its roster of current and former members reads like a roll call of the current Administration's staff and most vocal supporters. Immediately recognizable names in the neocon roster have attended CNP meetings and gave speeches -- including Alberto Gonzales, John Bolton, Clarence Thomas, and even Cheney and Rumsfeld. GWB himself is known to have attended a CNP function in 1999.

Where does the CNP get its funding? It is a nonprofit organization, and not much is known of where its money is obtained outside of reported grants. These grants, as chronicled on the Media Transparency website, only total $173,000 from 1995 to 2003. It is patently obvious that this paltry sum is insufficient to run even a small organization for that length of time, but the names of the organizations contributing to CNP, namely the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and Castle Rock Foundation, are of interest. Media Transparency reports this on Richard DeVos and his Foundation:

Quote:Richard DeVos is co-founder of Amway Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic (2004), and served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. He ranks in the Forbes 400 and is, according to Forbes, amoung the world's richest people, with an estimated worth of $1.7 billion in 2003122.

DeVos attended the Christian Calvin College, and he has been associated with numerous other Christian and conservative organizatons, such as the Council for National Policy, the Chairman's Council of the Conservative Caucus, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. His foundation's grantmaking reflects these conservative Christian te3ndencies and affiliations. In fact, Helen DeVos told the Grand Rapids Press that "our biggest priority is to give back to Christian causes.123" The foundation ranks eighth in the top 50 U.S. foundations awarding grants for religion, circa 2000, as published by the Foundation Center.

Among the top 20 foundations studied, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation ranks fifth in total conservative policy giving, providing $12,159,101 between 1999 and 2001 to groups such as Focus on the Family, the State Policy Network, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and other nationally influential public policy organizations in the fields of education, advocacy, research, religion, media and law. The foundation also provides grants to local (for instance, western Michigan and central Florida) churches, arts groups, ministries, and Christian Schools. For example, the foundation contributed $4 million to the Grand Rapids Christian School Association in 2000. The foundation also established and continues to fund the Urban Leadership Initiative, a national program designed to "identify and train emerging youth ministry leaders in local urgban communities.125" However, DeVos cautions that the foundation's social service grantmaking is intended to help people move out of poverty, not to "make 'em too comfortable there."126" Almost all of the grants are unrestricted.

There is plenty more at the link.

Regarding the other major grant source, Castle Rock Foundation:

Quote:The Coors family is well known for its conservative ideology and for its financial contributions to advance this ideology, both individually and through its company and foundations. In 1973, Joseph Coors backed Paul Weyrich, a champion of right-wing causes and later co-creator of the Moral Majority, when he decided to create a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., that eventually became the Heritage Foundation. Joseph Coors provided $250,000 in start-up funds.

Later, when Weyrich left Heritage, Joseph Coors worked with him to create the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, a PAC supporting conservative candidates that later developed into the Free Congress Foundation (FCF). The Adolph Coors Foundation heavily funded the Heritage Foundation from its inception through the 1980s. The Castle Rock Foundation continues to provide substantial funding to the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, contributing $1,948,760 and $1,050,000 respectively, between 1995 and 2002.187 Joseph Coors sat on the board of the Heritage Foundation until his death in March 2003, and Holland Coors has served on the board since 1998. Jeffrey Coors sits on the board of FCF, where he was chairman of the board for a number of years. Weyrich has referred to him as "one of the finest, most principled God-fearing people I have ever known."188

Joseph Coors also financially assisted Phyllis Schlafly's STOP ERA campaign and Bob Simonds' National Association of Christian Educators/Citizens for Excellence in Education, which "has worked with Christians and conservatives to restore academic excellence and traditional moral values to the public schools."189 Coors also backed Regent University (started by Pat Robertson), the Rutherford Institute, Morality in Media, the John Birch Society and the Nicaraguan contras.

A pattern begins to emerge, does it not?

The next section will cover the major players and their connections in the apparently isolated battles to eliminate the Church/State barrier, as well as an examination of the motivations of the morally bankrupt neocon politicians who pay lip service to Dominionist/Reconstructionalist ideals.

Quote:Few doubted the morality of the death penalty in the age that believed in the divine right of kings. Or even in earlier times. St. Paul had this to say (I am quoting, as you might expect, the King James version):

This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul. One can understand his words as referring only to lawfully constituted authority, or even only to lawfully constituted authority that rules justly. But the core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God. It is the “minister of God” with powers to “revenge,” to “execute wrath,” including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty). Paul of course did not believe that the individual possessed any such powers. Only a few lines before this passage, he wrote, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” And in this world the Lord repaid—did justice—through His minister, the state.

These passages from Romans represent the consensus of Western thought until very recent times. Not just of Christian or religious thought, but of secular thought regarding the powers of the state. That consensus has been upset, I think, by the emergence of democracy.

--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, God's Justice and Ours
"The stupidest samurai in the Universe is here, you bastards." --Sakata Gintoki, "Gintama"
Reply
#2
TheocracyWatch

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." more

The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

Twenty-five years ago dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,

True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.

Back from The Brink

Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts.

Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.) For more discussion of the elections go to Talk To Action. Our country just took a step back from the brink with democracy

We Go From Here?

Dominionists were very close to controlling all three branches of the federal government from which they could impose their narrow interpretation of scripture on the rest of society. People so close to full political power are not going to go away. The American people need to maintain vigilance and understand the history of how dominionists came to political power. And we need to embrace democracy with a passion -- for it was voter apathy that allowed leaders like Pat Robertson to get so many dominionists elected to Congress in the first place.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2648.htm
????? ????
Reply
#3
I don't need theirs stupid Olt Testiclement laws...we have enough bad laws as it is! Damned ZigZogs!
Reply
#4
Quote:I don't need theirs stupid Olt Testiclement laws...we have enough bad laws as it is! Damned ZigZogs!


"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws."

- Tacitus


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
????? ????
Reply
#5
Quote:[quote author="Xuxalina Rihhia"]I don't need theirs stupid Olt Testiclement laws...we have enough bad laws as it is! Damned ZigZogs!


"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws."

- Tacitus


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />[/quote]

You are absolutely right...and Ameriqaeda is the most corrupt it has ever been!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)