Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As a Jew who is familiar with “The Gospels” there is something perplexing about some Christians in America who have risen to power in our political process within the last four decades. Much of Jesus message, as detailed in “The Gospels” has been one of sympathy to the poor, enmity to the rich and love for humanity. I can give you the time tested quotes but just about everyone is familiar with them. Indeed through my childhood and formative teen years Christmastime every year would yield endless repetition of “Peace on Earth, Good Will to All Men”. Sometime in the 1970’s people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gained prominence and political power preaching their version of Christianity. These Christians became Kingmakers as it was assumed and actually true that their millions of followers would vote as a bloc. The Christianity that they preached had little to do with the American Christianity that I grew up with. To be sure their teachings on sexuality differed little from Christian thought for the previous 1,700 years and so abortion was evil, virginity was prized and sexuality was to be performed in subscribed methodology. What was different was that this version of Christian belief was a far more muscular and mach one. War was good when fought for American principles of capitalism and self interest. The wealthy needn’t worry about the “eye of the camel.” Poverty was seen as the result of moral failure. Rendering unto Caesar (the Government) was no longer the moral thing to do.
Now knowing history there were always periods where certain Christian leaders were in favor of warfare, favored the wealthy and sought to kill non-believers. Nevertheless, all through those era’s the same message of peace and love was preached as doctrine, whilst the religious leadership ignored the dichotomy of their own works. However, hypocrisies have always existed in every religious belief. The overriding principles always remained static, even if logic had to be twisted to ignore the obvious dichotomy. This is certainly true of the religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that each give their own interpretation of the “Torah.” The most glaring example of this is the entire Chapter of Genesis, which is literally riddled with dichotomy. Who did Cain, Abel and Seth marry and where did their brides come from? The standard method of dismissing these dichotomies was to ignore them and censor the questioner. Today though, in certain Christian circles these overarching principles derived from the teachings of Jesus have become ignored, to be replaced by a new “Dominionist” view, which would turn Jesus into a warlike, wealthy Republican that hated government and taxes. That is the subject of this guest blog.Chris Hedges is a well-know investigative journalist, who admittedly has a more dyspeptic view of the world than I do. Yet he is a brilliant person and very often nails a particular topic. This week I read an article by him that I received via OpEdNews http://www.opednews.com a blog I subscribe to. The articles title is: “The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government”. http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Radical-Christian-Righ-by-Chris-Hedges-Christian-Right_Government-Bullying_Government-Corruption_Right-Wing-Extremists-131007-879.html
Hedges article begins:
“There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country.
Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians” — meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible — will also be ruthlessly repressed. The “deviant” government bureaucrats, the “deviant” media, the “deviant” schools and the “deviant” churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these “deviants” will be annulled. “Christian values” and “family values” will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination.”
His description of this movement, called Dominionism, comports with my own view of what has happened to some Christians in America, who have intertwined Jesus with the Republican Party and its current driving force the “Tea Party”, which is a faux movement established by and led by some of the wealthiest families in our country. Hedges goes on to talk about Senator Ted Cruz, who very quickly has been seen as a “White Knight” for this movement and a hopeful Presidential contender:
“U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz — whose father is Rafael Cruz, a rabid right-wing Christian preacher and the director of the Purifying Fire International ministry — and legions of the senator’s wealthy supporters, some of whom orchestrated the shutdown, are rooted in a radical Christian ideology known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.
This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism. The intellectual and moral hollowness of the ideology, its flagrant distortion and misuse of the Bible, the contradictions that abound within it — its leaders champion small government and a large military, as if the military is not part of government — and its laughable pseudo-science are impervious to reason and fact. And that is why the movement is dangerous.
The cult of masculinity, as in all fascist movements, pervades the ideology of the Christian right. The movement uses religion to sanctify military and heroic “virtues,” glorify blind obedience and order over reason and conscience, and pander to the euphoria of collective emotions. Feminism and homosexuality, believers are told, have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Antichrist, attacking hypocrites and ultimately slaying nonbelievers.”
Up until reading this I didn’t know much about Ted Cruz, other than he was a right wing Texas Senator, who was pushing the government shut-down tactic, which we see in play today. I did know he was a Harvard graduate and presumably a bright man. Because of that it seemed to me that his positions were the mere political posturing of yet another sociopathic office seeker. The information about Ted Cruz’s father certainly clarifies the picture more because I can now accept that Cruz is a true believer in what he is spouting.
“This cult of masculinity, with its glorification of violence, is appealing to the powerless. It stokes the anger of many Americans, mostly white and economically disadvantaged, and encourages them to lash back at those who, they are told, seek to destroy them. The paranoia about the outside world is fostered by bizarre conspiracy theories, many of which are prominent in the rhetoric of those leading the government shutdown. Believers, especially now, are called to a perpetual state of war with the “secular humanist” state. The march, they believe, is irreversible. Global war, even nuclear war, is the joyful harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms billions of apostates to death.”
In progressive, moderate and liberal circles the question of why many working class people vote Republican, against their self-interest has risen continually. I think Hedges supplies part of the answer above. We know that far more women than men elected President Obama in both his runs for office. A cult of masculinity has been asserted. A cult that disdains women’s equality, would take control of their bodies, make them subservient to their spouses, refuse them birth control and even take away their right to vote. In our Macho culture, where a male who earns little is scorned; is perpetually afraid of losing his job; yet is nevertheless encouraged to “be a man”; the need to find someone to blame, or something to empower him is overwhelming. In some Churches that preach he is his wife’s boss and those values of macho masculinity are his right/heritage, many men find succor. What has helped with this is the reinforcement of outlets like FOXNews and clever campaigns of propaganda sponsored by billionaires, who are the people actually repressing them.
“Dominionists believe they are engaged in an epic battle against the forces of Satan. They live in a binary world of black and white. They feel they are victims, surrounded by sinister groups bent on their destruction. They have anointed themselves as agents of God who alone know God’s will. They sanctify their rage. This rage lies at the center of the ideology. It leaves them sputtering inanities about Barack Obama, his corporate-sponsored health care reform bill, his alleged mandated suicide counseling or “death panels” for seniors under the bill, his supposed secret alliance with radical Muslims, and “creeping socialism.” They see the government bureaucracy as being controlled by “secular humanists” who want to destroy the family and make war against the purity of their belief system. They seek total cultural and political domination.
All ideological, theological and political debates with the radical Christian right are useless. It cares nothing for rational thought and discussion. Its adherents are using the space within the open society to destroy the open society itself. Our naive attempts to placate a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to it that we too have “values,” only strengthen its supposed legitimacy and increase our own weakness.
Dominionists have to operate, for now, in what they see as the contaminated environment of the secular, liberal state. They work with the rest of us only because they must. Given enough power — and they are working hard to get it — any such cooperation will vanish. They are no different from the vanguard described by Lenin or the Islamic terrorists who shaved off their beards, adopted Western dress and watched pay-for-view pornography in their hotel rooms the night before hijacking a plane for a suicide attack. The elect alone, like the Grand Inquisitor, are sanctioned to know the truth. And in the pursuit of their truth they have no moral constraints.”
Chris Hedges connects many more dots in his article and I urge you to read the rest of it here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Radical-Christian-Righ-by-Chris-Hedges-Christian-Right_Government-Bullying_Government-Corruption_Right-Wing-Extremists-131007-879.html
We have seen some on this blog who either subscribe to Dominionist belief, or who are fellow travelers in the movement to “Christianize” America, by turning it into a theologically driven country. Hedges point that you can’t reason with them resonates with me. Despite any surface pretensions of “Christian Charity” or “Love the sinner, hate the sin” the truth is that in power these true believers would ruthlessly destroy all who didn’t publicly adhere to its beliefs. We see in many the blog posts here what happens when Islamic extremists gain power over Countries whose majority is Muslim. Despite the fact of their seeming acceptance of a pluralistic system, once they attain power, they ruthlessly dispose of any who do not follow their particular form of orthodoxy. The same thing is true of the Dominionist Christian Movement in the United States. They will seem to participate in our Constitutional processes as a tactic to gradually assume power. Once that goal has been achieved then they will not hesitate to enforce their views relentlessly and recklessly.
While Dominionists achieving power this would be a disaster for the United States, it also would most probably mark the end of humanity. The end game for these believers is “Resurrection” and the return of Jesus leading his armies to Armageddon marking the end of the world. In power, with nuclear armaments and a pretend Jesus to lead them, their ascendancy could well mark the end of of humanity.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
SwM,
My, my … all the usual suspects are noticeably absent … is no one willing to lecture us on the rightness of Cruz’s cause … dam our partisanship …
“PS. I was concerned that quoting DavidM and GeneH in such close proximity would cause spontaneous combustion on my computer. Thank you Rene Descartes I valiantly attempted it and discovered my fear was unfounded. 😮 )” (davidbluefish)
lol … you are braver than I
Oky1, Nope. Doubt it is even true. It was reported on right wing blogs.
SwM,
Were you one of the gals in Texas sing “Heil Satan” at the State House?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us/politics/a-wife-committed-to-cruzs-ideals-but-a-study-in-contrasts-to-him.html?hp&_r=1& While Ted Cruz was busy trying to eliminate the congressional staffers health insurance, he was enrolled in his wife’s blue chip Goldman Sachs health insurance plan.
I just discovered Dominionism on Sat. I’m flabbergasted & frightened. I teach public speaking & “carry a soapbox”. My new mission is to make people aware of this!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/politics/texans-stick-with-cruz-despite-defeat-in-washington.html?hp&_r=0 Home states and districts are usually loyal to their senators and representatives in times of political crisis. But the continued support for Mr. Cruz among Texas Republicans illustrates something larger: the cultural and political divide that continues to widen between a red state that President Obama lost by nearly 16 points in the 2012 election and the blue or even purple parts of the country where Mr. Cruz’s tone and tactics have caused outrage and consternation.
“Texas is not America,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican political consultant in Austin and the former spokesman for Mr. Cruz’s Republican predecessor in the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison. “It’s in America, but it’s not America. National polls don’t mean anything. Democrats haven’t won a statewide office in Texas since 1994. There are no Peter Kings in Texas.”
Dominionists could as easily be called dominationists. Their goal is to dominate and eliminate those who disagree, whether by exile, imprisonment or murder. Their “solution” for society involves final solutions.
House Republicans Changed The Rules So A Majority Vote Couldn’t Stop The Government Shutdown
By Ashley Alman
Posted: 10/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html
Excerpt:
In its effort to extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for opening the government, the GOP has faced a fundamental strategic obstacle: They don’t have the votes. A majority of the members of the House have gone on record saying that if they were given the opportunity to vote, they would support what’s known as a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government.
So House Republican leaders made sure no such vote could happen.
In the hours working up to the government shutdown on Sept. 30, Republican members of the House Rules Committee were developing a strategy to keep a clean CR off the floor, guaranteeing the government would remain shut down.
Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor — enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support — a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place.
DavidM writes “The facts suggest that Ted Cruz LOVES our Constitution, and he has dedicated his life to upholding it.”
GeneH writes “Loving something and understanding it are not mutually assured states.”
davidbluefish writes “Anthony Wiener loves hot dogs ….or at least one in particular.”
There are places to love hot dogs and or the bible. As a matter of fact these two specific things are entwined, one promulgates the other.
Understand please, that dedicating ones life to upholding either, is a matter of choice. Where one does it, is a matter of Law in many instances, and always a matter of taste. The action of doing either is understood by the doer. The reasons are open to interpretation.
PS. I was concerned that quoting DavidM and GeneH in such close proximity would cause spontaneous combustion on my computer. Thank you Rene Descartes I valiantly attempted it and discovered my fear was unfounded. :o)
To follow up on my last comment. Skilled literary analysis and forensic linguistic techniques have led many biblical scholars to the conclusion parts of the bible were written by multiple authors, contrary to traditional belief that there was a single author for those parts. Even more “heretical,” some authors may have been women. A prime example is Harold Bloom’s interesting work, The Book of J..
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/357579.The_Book_of_J
David,
I don’t have a bit of problem with religious texts in the context you offer. In fact I agree. Most of them are great literature, and played a part in shaping our modern culture. However, we both know that religious people become incensed when their holy books are subjected to critical literary analysis.
Additionally, any instructor has to be careful to not offer any of those texts in a fashion which could be interpreting as trying to “sell” them to students as “truth.” Personally, that is a tightrope that I would not have wanted to walk back when I was teaching.
davidm,
There are public high schools that do teach courses about different world religions. My daughter chose to take one when she was in high school. It was not a required course. There is much to learn when one attends school–including reading, writing, math, literature, the sciences, history, geography, etc. Now, you’d have public school teachers teaching students all about religion and God, too. I wonder what would have to be cut out of the curriculum so that teachers would have time to do that?
*****
Creationism and taxes in Louisiana
By C. Welton Gaddy,
Published: April 1, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/creationism-and-taxes-in-louisiana/2013/04/01/be823746-9ae5-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
Excerpt:
In 1785, the commonwealth of Virginia considered a bill that would fund “teachers of the Christian Religion.” James Madison, who as one of our founding fathers was a key architect of our Constitution, wrote that “it is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes acceptable to him.”
Put another way: funding, participating in and sending our children to religious education programs is the right and responsibility of faith communities, clergy and parents as they see fit. It’s not our government’s purview.
Elaine M wrote: “Put another way: funding, participating in and sending our children to religious education programs is the right and responsibility of faith communities, clergy and parents as they see fit. It’s not our government’s purview.”
Madison was the strongest of the founding fathers in promoting this concept, but even he caved in and did not veto the bills Congress passed for funding chaplains in the military. He certainly wrote against doing it based upon principle, but when voted upon by Congress, he signed them into law.
I do not share Madison’s extreme views on this. I am a little more Jeffersonian. I think religious education has value, but there are enough ways to fund it within the religions themselves rather than burden the taxpayer with it. Like Jefferson, I also do not have a problem with indirect support by government, such as churches meeting in public schools or government buildings to teach their philosophies.
Having said that, we have to realize that a public education system has evolved that is in the business of educating our children. From an academic standpoint, this educational system should not be afraid to address religious issues, regardless of the sensitivities of others. There are lots of ways to deal with these sensitivities. Have the local Iman come teach the students for a day on specific concepts of their religion. Next day have the local Rabbi come teach the students for a day. Day after that, have a Protestant Christian, then a Mormon, then a Roman Catholic, then an Eastern Orthodox. You get the idea. Provide some actual education, some exposure, to the different ideas out there. That is education. Public schools should not indoctrinate students into any particular establishment of religion, but they should educate students about the various establishments of religion. It would probably not take longer than a few weeks.
Mr. Spindell,
A class apology. It is accepted in the gracious manner with which it was given.
Thankyou Mr. Jankoski,
When I’m wrong I must admit it because that is not only the most ethical way to act, but also the most economical. Think of all the time I would have to waste justifying what I knew in my heart was incorrect behavior. 🙂
Elaine, sorry, but my reply to you got trapped by WordPress.
davidm2575:
From the link you provided, I just don’t see any bullying or mocking:
Teacher says Bible doesn’t count as nonfiction book.
Student responds: “Honestly, I believe it is.”
Teacher asks class how many think Bible is nonfiction.
All but two raised their hand.
Teacher grants student credit for reading Bible.
No other facts regarding the incident are provided. The facts provided do not justify a bullying claim. The fact that the teacher grants credit for reading BIble does not support bullying claim.
I assume you don’t see the legal response against the teacher regarding this incident as creating a chilling effect on the teacher’s free speech and education in the classroom.
Otteray,
Add to the Koran–the Book of Mormon, Torah, Dianetics, Tripitaka, etc.
Elaine M wrote: “Add to the Koran–the Book of Mormon, Torah, Dianetics, Tripitaka, etc.”
The Torah is part of the Bible, but you make a good point here. Make sure to teach about that. Children should also be taught about the Book of Mormon and the U.S. History associated with it. We just had a Presidential candidate who is Mormon, and so education about that religion is helpful. Dianetics… only superficially because of its recent origins and minor influence, Tripitaka… yes. Add also the Bhagavad Gita. Roman and Greek mythology as well, but I think they cover that now fairly well. A good well rounded education is important. You are on the right track now.
David,
In your comments, hypothetically substitute Koran for Bible. Now what say you?
OS wrote: “In your comments, hypothetically substitute Koran for Bible. Now what say you?”
Uh… I already mentioned the Koran, but I spelled it Qur’an. We definitely need to be educating our children about the Koran in public schools. Although the Bible has greater significance in the guidance of Western Civilization and the creation of our educational system, the Koran has influenced millions around the world, and with the war on terror issues going on, we need to broaden the education of children on these issues.
Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F. Supp. 1505 (D. Colo. 1989)
http://csl.sog.unc.edu/node/1093
Facts:
During a school open house, a parent complained to the principal about two books in teacher Kenneth Roberts’s fifth-grade classroom: The Bible in Pictures and The Life of Jesus. The principal reviewed the books and ordered Roberts to remove them from the classroom library. Roberts complied. The principal had on previous occasions noticed Roberts reading a Bible, which he kept on his desk, during class time and had ordered him to keep the Bible in his desk drawer during class hours. The principal had had to repeat this order when Roberts violated it. Roberts asked for written guidelines concerning what materials he could keep in his room, but the principal denied the request, saying that common sense should prevail. Roberts then was warned that failure to keep the Bible out of sight between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. would be considered insubordination and grounds for dismissal. Roberts sued, asking for a court order that he be allowed to keep the Bible out on his desk and, on occasion, read from it silently during class hours.
*****
Roberts was reading his Bible during class hours? I’d like to know why he was reading his Bible when he should have been teaching and/or observing his students.