MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

A Dominionist Presidency, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #237

August 22, 2011 Mike Gold 2 Comments

Wikipedia, which is generally good for this sort of thing, defines Dominionism as “the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy.”

That’s interesting. Back in the day I hung around people who had much the same goal, sans Christianity. They called themselves Revolutionaries. Whereas they did not succeed, for better or worse, they did not have bona fide presidential candidates as members of their movement.

According to The Daily Beast, The Texas Observer, The New Yorker and others, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are Dominionists. The Observer’s Forrest Wilder said the Dominionist members “believe certain Christians are destined to not just take ‘dominion’ over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world.” It evolved out of the work of many smaller Christian sects that have come together to “take back America.”  They are so extreme that even Ralph Reed has denounced it. In case you forgot, Reed founded the Christian Coalition in 1989. Twenty years later he started up the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The Beast notes “Dominionism derives from a small fringe sect called Christian Reconstructionism, founded by a Calvinist theologian named R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960s. Christian Reconstructionism openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy.” In case you didn’t know, that last bit refers to those who have renounced their religious upbringing. Rushdoony does not note if these disbelievers should be stoned to death or simply shot.

You think he’s a quack? That’s probably because you think Bachmann and Perry are quacks. But Rushdoony is the guy who started the Christian homeschooling movement. That one has been quite successful.

After digging into these movements, the previously bizarre and often comedic utterances of Bachmann and Perry are viewed in a stronger and clearer perspective. Several months ago, I was among the few who said Bachmann could be a viable candidate. Clearly, today she is just that. Sadly, there are a whole lot of scared Christians out there, and history shows us that in dire times, totalitarian movements such as Dominionism comfort the desperate, the weak and the feeble-minded.

Do the Dominionists have what it takes to get a candidate elected? Probably not – right now. But as anybody who has studied exactly how Barack Obama raised his money knows all too well, with the Internet and with sufficient organization that status can change in very short order.

Did you note that last week Bachmann said that, as president, she would overturn the same-sex laws? I don’t know how she can do it under the Constitution, but then again, Dominionists see the Constitution with its freedom of religion thing and its freedom of expression thing as just another obstacle that needs to be overcome in the name of their lord.

Jesus Christ could not be reached for comment.

Last night, media metaphysician Mike Gold resumed his Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind rock’n’blues show, which streams four times a week on www.getthepointradio.com and is also available at that same venue on demand for those who simply can’t wait. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com, where he also holds the ethereal title of editor-in-chief.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Rick Oliver
    August 22, 2011 - 12:33 pm

    Rick Perry is probably more electable than Michelle Bachmann. In the absence of actual facts, the American electorate seems to really like that “outsider” cowboy mystique. Obama was the first senator to rise to the White House since LBJ, and LBJ didn’t get there by being a senator. Four out of five of Obama’s predecessors were southern or western governors.

    And congratulations on your Harvey award, Mike. Well deserved.

  2. Mike Gold
    August 22, 2011 - 1:16 pm

    I think the Republicans will likely wind up nominating the candidate that most effectively uses fear to get out the Baggers vote, a person with no obvious connection to reality whatsoever. There will be no white knight (literally, white) of reason riding in to this cross-burning.

    And I say this as a person who might be voting for a Republican candidate for the senate. Chris Shays, with whom I’ve worked, just announced. He’ll likely have to defeat Linda “WWF-no-E” McMahon, who has just to throw her folding chair into the ring. And the Democrats, I think, are going to try to wire Chris Dodd to Victor Frankenstein’s Jacob’s Ladder, unless they’re too busy using it on Obama.

    Thanks for the note, Rick. I appreciate it. It was pretty cool, and the chicken wasn’t bad either.

  3. Rick Oliver
    August 22, 2011 - 2:13 pm

    On the lack of connection to realty, Fox ran a piece on a potential new cancer treatment, mostly as an excuse to explain why Obamadeathpanels ™ won’t let you have this treatment and you’ll die hideously. They neglected to point out that insurance companies don’t cover experimental treatments and that we already have medical panels deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. They’re called insurance companies.

  4. Martha Thomses
    August 22, 2011 - 2:17 pm

    I think those guys are so worried about Shariah law because someone might beat them to it.

  5. R. Maheras
    August 22, 2011 - 2:17 pm

    Mike, I don’t think the Republicans need to fan any flames of fear. Things are so screwed up now, all they have to do is distance themselves from Bush II and re-hash what’s been going on the past eight years or so.

    Bush II dug us into a huge economic hole, but instead of filling it up, this administration seems hell-bent on digging it all the way to China — which, I suppose, is only apropo, since the Chinese own the majority of our debt.

  6. Mike Gold
    August 22, 2011 - 2:39 pm

    No they don’t. Of our approximately $14 trillion debt, China only holds a mere $1.15 trillion. The Federal Reserve holds more than that, about $1.33 trillion. Other foreign nations hold about $3.33 trillion, the rest is split up among private companies and individuals and state governments.

    The lie that China “owns” the United States or holds “a majority” of US debt is just another ton of bullshit the Baggers crap out like diarrhea at a beanfest. Just another way to keep us in fear and terror. Just more lies from America’s biggest and most dangerous terrorist organization, the Tea Baggers, and their wholly-owned leisure service, the Republican party.

  7. R. Maheras
    August 22, 2011 - 4:33 pm

    According to the Treasury Department, as of June 2011, China is the largest single holder of U.S. government debt at $1.165 trillion. (Source: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt)

    The fact that you can use a qualifier of “mere” on that amount is startling.

    And does it really matter WHO owns our debt? Originally I was just making a sarcastic point about China, but the fact is, no matter who we owe the money to, we’re still required to pay it all back or we default.

    In addition, the whole $14 trillion estimate is low-ball nonsense anyway, since our unfunded obligations over the next 20 years increases our debt to probably twice — or even three times — that amount (depending on which “expert” is guessing).

    And stop blaming the Tea Party for this “lie.” Here’s a direct quote from a July 25, 2011 article in that hotbed of Tea Party activism, The New Yorker: “Nobody has more skin in this than China, America’s largest creditor, which stands to see its investments suffer if the United States faces a ratings downgrade and debt default.”

    Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2011/07/view-from-china-the-debt-impasse.html#ixzz1TBu5VJ5L

  8. Doug Abramson
    August 22, 2011 - 9:12 pm

    Jesus wept!

  9. Doug Abramson
    August 22, 2011 - 9:13 pm

    As for Perry, I read a GREAT description of him over the weekend: George W. Bush, without the brains! Best laugh I had all week.

  10. Rene
    August 22, 2011 - 9:25 pm

    This is some scary shit. Part of me doesn’t want to believe it. The US has such a long democratic tradition, that it’s hard to imagine it could turn into a theocracy. Even most hardline Conservatives would balk at harsh penalties for something like apostasy. And there are enough checks and balances in US society to make sure that secularists would never be completely shut down. Furthermore, the Conservative movement is inately in conflict with itself, since free market capitalism always ends up undermining rigid theocratic structures.

    But it is a reasonable fear that people like Bachmann or Perry would move the US just a little bit closer to their dominionist ideal. And that over generations certain freedoms could be eroded. Bush did a lot of damage in just 8 years, after all.

  11. Mike Gold
    August 23, 2011 - 6:08 am

    Rene, a LOT of me doesn’t want to believe it. Actually, I don’t care the religious fervor of any potential candidate — I care that they underplay it so they can attract votes from the rubes too stupid and/or lazy to check it out. The United States has always been a heartbeat away from being an all-out theocracy, and I think the only thing holding us back is the fact that people can’t agree WHICH theocratic dictatorship they should support.

    Doug, the GWB line is a good joke. Here’s a better one: “Separation of church and state is a constitutional guarantee.”

  12. Rick Oliver
    August 23, 2011 - 7:31 am

    Many of our constitutional rights are being seriously eroded without religious influence. The Obama administration has continued the flagrant violations of the 4th amendment started by Bush, and the easy availability of so much information online seems to have caused many people to be disturbingly unconcerned about the loss those rights. They seem to complacently accept the notion that they no longer have any right to privacy.

  13. Rick Oliver
    August 23, 2011 - 2:30 pm

    Right now it looks like basically any Republican currently in the race could give Obama a run for the money. From a recent Gallup poll:

    “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the president 48 percent to 46 percent while Obama was tied with Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 47 percent. The president led Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by two percentage points with 47 percent and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota with four percentage points at 48 percent.”

  14. Mike Gold
    August 23, 2011 - 3:16 pm

    Everything’s within the margin, which means two things: the Republicans don’t have a breakout candidate, and the incumbent is not doing well. However, there’s something else that’s extremely significant: Ron Paul is as strong a candidate as anybody else.

    No wonder the Republicans refuse to acknowledge his existence. They’ve got their own taste in crazy little fucks.

  15. John Tebbel
    August 24, 2011 - 6:07 am

    So people who can’t explain the trinity are telling us how the Federal budget ought to work. Or do evangelicals believe in the trinity? I forgot. My brain is obviously trying to offload fantasy hosspucky.

  16. Malcolm Robertson
    August 26, 2011 - 7:31 am

    I suppose I need to lead off with a disclaimer. From seventh grade until my senior year in high school (1984-1990) I was educated in a school in the greater Chicago area that sat at the forefront of the Reconstruction movement. I have read Rushdoony and other leaders in that movement extensively. I am not a Reconstructionist, but I have a pretty thorough understanding of them.

    You’ve made a couple mistakes in your explanation. Every Reconstrunctionist is a Dominionist, but not every Dominionist is a Reconstructionist. This is much the same way that every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist.

    The Wiki article on the subject also fails in its attempt to link Francis Schaeffer with R.J. Rushdoony. The link comes from the mutual starting point of Cornelius Van Til. Schaeffer was Van Til’s student in college, and Rushdoony used Van Til’s presuppositional thinking in his own theological and philosophical formations. It is worth noting that Van Til denounced Reconstructionism and had a few disputes with Schaeffer.

    The linking of Perry and Bachman to Reconstructionism is a little too good to be true for you modern liberals. First, most Reconstructionists would not bother to run a clinic for gays trying to change their ways in the manner that Bachman’s husband does. Second, most Reconstructionists are also conspiracy theorists of the Alex Jones variety and thus likely to avoid the Republican party. In fact, most vote for the Constitution Party. Even if they did vote Republican, they are more likely to support Ron Paul than Perry or Bachman because they hold to the Austrian School of economic thought. However, because modern libs have always said that conservatives in general and the the religious right in particular want a to put the corpse of Oliver Cromwell in charge, all this talk must be true.

    The thing that’s truly ironic about this is that the Christian Reconstruction movement peaked in the early to mid nineties. Dredging it up now shows desperation on the part of the left.

  17. Rene
    August 28, 2011 - 5:25 pm

    I think you don’t get it, Malcolm. A Dominionist Presidency is my greatest nightmare, and I think many Liberals feel the same. That Bachmann and Perry don’t wear “I am a Dominionist” T-shirts, they just are part of Churches that are led by figures that may have been influenced by Rushdoony or other guys in the same theological family tree is already too strong a connection to Dominionism for my tastes.
    .
    I wouldn’t feel reassured if someone said to me “I don’t really believe in Big Brother, I am only a follower of a guy that shares some ideas with him.” Is that supposed to make me less scared?
    .
    I could rate my preference for US Presidents based on how distanced they are from Christian Reconstruction.

Comments are closed.