Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do you know what a Dominionist is? Ask Cotton Mather Santorum.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 24, 2012, 7:19 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In America, religion is not supposed to be a factor in lawmaking or governance. The Founding Fathers were cognizant that religious fanatics may attempt to subvert the secular nature of the Constitution in favor of a theocracy, so they crafted the 1st Amendment to maintain the separation of church and state. However, the religious right is not content to follow the tenets of the Constitution, and through movements like the moral majority have made every attempt to turn America into a theocracy by methods both covert and overt.
It is extraordinarily disturbing that religious organizations would attempt to influence the government or its leaders by preaching from the pulpit and encouraging church members to apply pressure to their representatives, but the past few years have seen an increase in direct involvement by fanatical representatives in Congress and it doesn’t bode well for America as a democracy. The religious right has lobbied for Christian-based, socially conservative policies in the realm of the family and especially to promote pro-life groups and anti-gay initiatives, but the new Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists are taking their demagoguery to a new level inside the halls of government.
A Christian fundamentalist organization known as the Family is part of a world-wide effort to control and influence governments, but its sphere of influence is most dangerous to America’s secular democracy. Readers may be familiar with the Capitol Hill group, C Street, which exists to aid congressmen in their understanding of Christian teachings in order to apply bible-based standards in their jobs as legislators. On its face, there is nothing wrong with representatives practicing their faith and basing decisions on personal dogma whether from biblical sources or pagan philosophies. There is though, a danger to America when our elected representatives legislate from Christian Dominionists’ beliefs that make the Constitution irrelevant and undermine the secular doctrine our democracy is founded on.
Politicians in Congress and state legislative bodies who subscribe to fundamentalist Christian beliefs are making dangerous moves to change religion-neutral laws to a theocratic-themed set of statutes meant to reflect evangelical core beliefs that define immorality and sin as the greatest threats to America’s greatness. These so-called Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists are fighting an imagined threat posed by feminists, homosexuals, liberals, and secular humanists, and have as their provocateurs of hate people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the C Street pack of fanatics who if allowed, will install the Ten Commandments as the law of the land.
Theocratic law is a danger to all Americans and will put in place ancient standards that will make the Taliban look tame in comparison. During the midterm campaign season there were suggestions that adultery, murder, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex should be punished by stoning to death, and if anyone believes such radical candidates could not possibly be elected they are wrong. Daniel Webster (R-FL), proposed that for crimes like murder and adultery, we should institute stoning to death as a punishment and his supporters must agree because he defeated Congressman Alan Grayson. Now there is one more Reconstructionist legislative voice in Congress.
In Virginia, attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and Governor Bob McDonnell closed down funding to Planned Parenthood because their fundamentalist Christian beliefs conflict with a woman’s right to choose. McDonnell and Cuccinelli are also investigating climate scientists because man-made global climate change is contrary to their belief that God controls Earth’s climate. The opposition to same-sex marriage, repeal of DADT, and health care reform are inexplicably tied to Christian fundamentalist’s belief that the bible is the source of all law and therefore health-care reform and repeal of DADT should be repealed or blocked.
A Texas congressman, Louie Gohmert wrote that God has ordained Christians to run the country and cites obscure bible verses to back up his claims. In several states, Christian groups have put on the books laws stating that embryos are persons, and in extreme cases call most means of birth control murder. The Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists have infiltrated the military and have devised a test to determine a soldier’s level of spirituality, and a gun manufacturer who supplies the military with weapons stamped bible verses on the barrels of guns the soldiers carry.
The inherent danger of religious fundamentalism should be self-evident in America, and it is not a stretch to imagine Inquisition-type crusades occurring in America, and with the bible as a guide, no-one is safe. Many of the extremist Christians repudiate the peaceful teachings of Jesus and revert to Old Testament-style laws that are so severe, that if allowed to gain a foothold will result in a bloodbath that extremist Muslims would envy. The bible’s Old Testament is rife with stories of genocide and destruction that is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. It is advisable to remember that most Germans were caught up in the wave of anti-Semitism that claimed the lives of 6 million Jews and caused World War II. Religious zeal is worse than nationalistic fervor, and seemingly peaceful, tolerant people can be swept up in a killing frenzy; especially if people believe the murder is commanded or condoned by God.
Americans cannot be complacent by letting these Dominionists proceed in their attempts at theocracy. The anti-immigrant mindset that many Republican legislators embrace is the impetus for revoking the 14th Amendment, and the proponents are primarily fundamentalist Christians. The homophobes in the Republican Party who advocate for extermination of gays are Christian extremists and serve as legislators, governors, and state representatives in every state in the Union. Liberals, scientists, feminists, and atheists are all targets of fundamentalist Christians who base their hate on the bible’s Stone Age decrees.
No group will escape the Dominionists’ wrath, and with legislators and the military establishment behind them, America as a nation is in jeopardy. The Taliban and extremist Islamists may be a threat to America from afar, but the real threat is within our borders and within our government. The greatest protection Americans have at their disposal is the Constitution; as long as the Dominionists don’t dismantle it.
..............................................................................FROM: www.politicususa.com

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I agree, religious extremism is a real danger to modern society. Common sense thinking is replaced with blind obedience to a work of fiction. Blind hatred propagates out of little passages of text, which unfortunately leads some to carry out violent actions.

This is not really what OWS is about, but I agree that some group should stand up to religious extremism, from any religion.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

From one perspective, this MAY seem OT - I see it as a cabal of lemmings who will not only stand against us -
they will fight against us - forewarned is forearmed

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There will always be religious extremists. They can hate on people while singing Kumbaya all day long, for all I could care. Not that I agree with it. But, truth is, the most extreme religious, those are minds that will not be changed. So it's better to just ignore.

So long as it isn't brought into politics. The problem is instead of being ignored, they are increasingly more powerful in politics. That we, as a society, allow this to happen, allow our politicians to be used, and even allow politicians to invoke God and religion to gain political advantage, is the problem.

Politcians should be shunned and rejected for this behavior. Instead they are revered for it. Especially by the Religious Right.

Their religious freedom is infringing on my separation of church and state. God and religion should not be a part of politics. That's what we need to be standing up against. Not religious extremism in and of itself. But religion in politics.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Good Post April..

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Thank you. That's actually really nice of you to say. Especially since I've been compared to Hitler all day for it. : (

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Question: who said the following

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them.

We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

Answer: Adolf Hitler, though this could be confused with an April post....hmmmm....

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You could also say the writers of the Constitution said many of the things Hitler said.

It isn't what Hitler said. He was entitled to say anything he wanted, especially as ruler of the land. It's what he did that mattered. Just as many modern Christians live lives that contradict what their professed lord and master said and did. They may mouth the words, but they live a lie.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

Are you insane? You are despicable to compare me to Hitler. That is so beyond sick and disgusting! I want you to say it. On your next reply you come right straight out and say it. None of this inference crap! I want you to say it straight out.

"April is like Hitler". You own it and say it right now!

All your Hitler talk is nothing but fear mongering. Really it's ridiculous. We have freedom of religion. Are you completely stupid?

You cannot provide one logical reason that religion should be part of politics except to invoke Hitler fear mongering.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

And as far as facts go my above post are hitlers EXACT words, and it's a FACT that you not only have you said very similar things, but also have touted supposedly 'scientific' studies that purport your political enemies (religious folk and conservatives) are both low in intelligence and racists.

The new atheist socialist's are just like the old ones when they try to silence ideas of morality, religion, or anything beyond their narrow viewpoint.

What's disgusting is that those that wish to tout facts shriek insanity when confronted with inconvenient ones.

And yes, we have freedom of religion, but it's stupidity to think you can confine it to the 4 walls of the church and call it freedom. Or that people won't oppose these nazi views.

All religions or lack thereof are part of the political debate, and only the most despicable, disgusting of humans have tried to remove them from the public square.

And they get away with it when good people do or say nothing.

I have provided several logical reasoning and you have provided NOWHERE in the WORLD where your kookie idea of removing religion from politics has had a good result

you are illogical, narrow minded, and fact deficient, yet history proves what your type is capable of.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

Say it and own it. Or take it back and apologize to me right now!!

[-] 5 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Don't let the trolls get to you. That's what they want, a reaction.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

April is a narrow minded atheistic socialist hater who tries to use 'scientific' reports to impugn the integrity and intelligence of political and religious opponents.

whereas I'm open to all religions or lack thereof

whatever you are you sure the hell aren't inclusive.

typical

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

Own it or apologize.

I'm going to tell you something that I have intentionally not told you earlier. Because I don't believe we need to use religion to make a logical argument or have a logical discussion. But you seem incapable of that. And further you assume wrongly that I am atheist. To show how wrong you are - I'm not atheist. I'm Catholic.

And I never linked any "scientific" reports about intelligence and religious beliefs. I think I know what you're talking about though. It was not my post. You are confusing me with someone else. You are mistaken.

Did you even read the original post here. It is about you. That we should toss aside separation of church and state. That religion should be right in there with all of our politics, policy and governance. There should be no separation according to your logic.

debndan does not believe in the separation of church and state. Own it and say that too.

[-] -2 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 2 years ago

What I hear you saying is a persons religious beliefs, no matter what they may be, have no place in politics whatsoever. Your morality, and reality has been formed by your catholic beliefs to some degree or level. If you deny that, your religion is a sham. If you run for office someday their is no way that you could or would set aside your religious beliefs. It is impossible because those beliefs are who you are.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No. That's not what I'm saying. It's obviously my fault. I am trying really hard to explain this. I'm obviously not doing a very good job.

I absolutely don't set my religion aside. That would be impossible.

A persons beliefs, my beliefs, in some cases, makes me inclined towards one policy view over another.

That does not mean that I feel any need that a politician proclaim his religious views for me. I just want to know his policies. And if they sync up with my views and his positions makes sense, he has logic and facts to back it up, that's all I really need to know.

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

No, what is sick and disgusting that you share a viewpoint with a monster of history, and that you wish to enforce your narrow world view on others, instead of letting all voices be heard

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

Own it and say it. Don't stop with your disgusting inference. You make me sick. Say it straight out. OWN IT.

And you are further absolutely wrong. Hitler was religious. He was raised Catholic. He believed he was doing God's work.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hitler

Do some research. To the degree that he did not advocate religion was simply to consolidate his own power and the power of the state. That's why we have separation of church and state and freedom of religion!

You have yet to give me one logical reason that religion should be part of politics except your Hitler fear mongering.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh, and another thing, when you said:

You have yet to give me one logical reason that religion should be part of politics except your Hitler fear mongering.

That is another LIE that I'm calling you on, for I have repeatedly stated ways how MLK and Gahndi used religious speech in politics to provide positive change

but you have used fallacious arguments and lies and ignore the facts at hand

typical Hater

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

Own it or apologize like a big grown up person.

That makes no sense. Martin Luther King was a preacher. Not a politician. Gandhi was from a completely different country and culture. Has no bearing on the separation of church and state in our country.

MLK was not using religion to run for politcal office. He was a preacher leading a political movement. This is far different from a politician. He was not in government. He did not hold office or attempt to hold an office in government. Big big difference.

I have never ever ever said that religion should not be part of society and does not bring about positive change. To the degree that religion plays a role in society (as with MLK and the Civil Rights Movement), a role in shaping a view and may indicate the favor of one policy v another. That is fine! Of course that happens.

If a person is any particular religion and believes that life begins at conception and uses that view to favor - example - anti abortion policies, that is fine. But that is far different than using God talk and invoking God and religion in politics. There is no reason for a politician to discuss his religion. All he simply has to do is state his position the issue. For or against. He can even say why, ie: I believe that life begins at conception, or not. That's all that is necessary. As long as you know his position on the issue, what his policy choice is, why do you need to know anything more?

Why is it necessary for politicians to use religion in politics? You still have not given me one logical reason why it's necessary.

MLK - not a politician, not in government, not running for office. Gandhi - different country. Did not have separation of church and state.

I am not saying that religion cannot bring about positive change. I am only saying that it should not be part of politics.

Again, according to your logic, since religion brings about positive change, and it should be right in there with politics, so why shouldn't we just throw out the separation of church and state?

And don't forget, you still owe my an apology.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but the I-am-rubber-you-are-glue logic went away with the 4th grade.

I've provided FACTS of what you have said, and what hitler has said, you have provided innuendo, and then say I'm wrong, based on I'm wrong?

You prove my point with every post.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"April is like Hitler".

You owe me a huge huge apology! Apologizing is not 4th grade. Act like an adult and apologize.

Fact: Hitler was raised Catholic.
Fact: Hitler used God, and his religious bias to enact genocide.

He used his religious views to enact policy. Policies of genocide. That is the exact thing I am arguing against. That is exactly why religion should be separate from politics and government. I am arguing against what Hitler did. You are arguing for it. That religious views should be part of politics, policy making and government.

Why is this so hard to understand? You prove my point with every post!

Act like a grown up and apologize to me right now. Do the right thing.

You do not seem to be able to understand the difference between separation of church and state v abolishment of religion. We already have separation of church and state. But according to your logic, we should throw that out the window. And God should be right in there with politics, policy and in all our legislation . That is what is Hitler like!

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

Should these folks kept their church hymn in the 4 walls of the church?

Should they have not marched into the public square with their religious beliefs?

Should MLK have kept his speech bereft of God or religious images?

Should he have remained silent in the face of hypocrisy?

Who's voices do we silence when we push any and all religion from the public square as you advocate?

Hypocrisy is to be pointed out whether it exists on the far right or far left, and it is because of our faith in a higher power that we will inspire, overcome, and continue to change the world in a positive manner and seek a more equal society.

When the Koch heads try to silence people whom seek dignity I've opposed them.

When the social darwinians seek to crush the poor, I oppose them.

When those in power have over reached and passed evil laws, I've been there to repeal them.

And whenever anyone tries to be superior to their fellow man or impugn their freedoms, I'll again be there.

For this I'll never apologize, for I have a dream, a dream where theist and atheist can work together using their deeply held beliefs to change our corrupt world.

Where every creed, color, religion, and class are equally respected

a world where one does not fear whether they have the accepted orthodoxy, a world where our religious differences are celebrated as strengths

I have a dream

but your view has always brought a nightmare

[-] -2 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

debndan vs April "clash of the Libtards"

[-] 2 points by thewalrus (5) 2 years ago

Free at last free at last with these mlk specials shipping is free at last

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 2 years ago

Every person brings their beliefs in. Because a person is religious, of any persuasion, does not mean they exclude those beliefs when they enter public office. The only "separation" we have, is the government leaving we the people free to practice any religion, or not, of ones choosing.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Please just tell me you won't compare me to Hitler. I've had a bad day.

Laws cannot be based on religious beliefs because it would be viewed as establishing or preferring one religion over another. If laws cannot be made using a basis of religion, then it is not necessary to talk about religion in politics. Because the intent of politics is to enact policies or laws. And since it can't be used as a basis anyway, it makes no sense to talk about.

I agree we bring our beliefs. Of course we do. I'm fine with that. So do politicians bring their beliefs which they may use to favor a particular policy over another. Or makes them more inclined towards one policy v another.

But instead of politicians using God and religion to make their policy case, talking about religion, it should be fact based rather than God or religion based. If his policies and positions are supported by logic and facts then there's no reason to talk about religion. Then he can base any laws that he wants to enact on the facts and logic that support it. Because he can't use his religion anyway.

For example, if a politician believes life begins at conception and he is against abortion, that's really all that he has to say. There is actually even some science that supports this. That's what he should use to discuss. There's no need to talk about God or religion.

Because if my God is different than his God, then I could very well dismiss him outright. Whos God is right? But if he shows me some scientific evidence and uses it to provide a logical argument of why he believes life begins at conception, that is more legitimate and persuasive, maintains the separation of church and state, and can be used for making new law. It makes a lot more sense than saying "because my God says so."

So long as his constituents know where he stands on the issues. He should use facts and logic. Not religion. He'll be judged on his policies and results in office. Not his religion and church attendance.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 2 years ago

Who decides what extremism is?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think it's based on social norms. It's whatever is the tails of the bell curve. I'm quite sure that extremists think they're normal. But normal is a comparative viewed in a statistical distribution.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 2 years ago

If lawmakers and judges follow the constitution, that is all I care abut.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Chris Matthews made this his last word, last night, great to see the big media get it right once in awhile. check it here.

http://hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/23/10489693-santorums-views-on-the-earth-is-questionable

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

yes - I confess - I was spurred by Chris to look into this bunch of demons
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees MSNBC as NOT the opposite of fox. When I see an MSNBC story of interest, I check it out
ALEC is another scary one

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

like it or not we got to start making our words come out of their mouths,.... I think that making use of useful things is part of life...

[-] 0 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

Matthews is a Obama butt lick'er and nothing else

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and the Popes' too ha ha ha

[-] 2 points by chell (15) from Vienna, Wien 2 years ago

Excellent post. Jeff Sharlet has written a few books on the subject of C Street and 'the family.' i am glad that you shared the "7 mountains" graphic. It is well worth anyone's time to look into that a bit. There are a number of videos from those who are 7 mountains adherents that explain this particular pov, and would help the viewer see that this particular brand of evangelicism infected the political process in America, decades ago.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

Power to the feminists, homosexuals, liberals, and secular humanists!!!!

Great post, Bensdad. These people don't even get the fact that most of the founding fathers were not practicing Christians, but deist in their beliefs. Good grief we cannot let these people take over this country.

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Rachel maddow show also did some in depth reporting on the family....scary shit. The religious fundementalists are not content to worship as they want, they really do want to force their archaic morality based onto the everyone. They are dangerous.

[-] 0 points by newman (-58) 2 years ago

Rachel maddow is just as bad as Matthews, extreme left propaganda crap

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

She does lean to the left side in choosing stories and in opinion, but unlike Fox on the right, she actually finds factual information, backs it up with sources, dicusses who is paying for the source, and she apologizes and makes corrections when she has made an error. When she gives an opinion, she makes it clear that is her opinion, unlike fox at which opinion is played like fact.

Matthews has sided with moderate right opinion, unlike anyone on fox, and they both invite the right to discuss topics, and actually dont shout them down, cut them off, or call them names...again, unlike fox.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Great post. I've actually been having just such conversations the past two days here.

My belief is that religion and politics should be kept separate. There shouldn't be any God talk at all in politics. Because politics leads to policy. And the intent of the separation of church and state is so religion doesn't enter policy making.

Politics should be based on facts and the debate of facts. Not God talk.

I get called a militant extremist. Simply because I prefer facts be used in politics and policy making, not God. If that's militant extremism, then call me a militant extremist with a capital M.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Great post.

There is an excellent site: http://www.narwatch.com/

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

From Jean Brody:
"Give me a girl at an impressionable age and she is mine for life."
I wish I knew how to sever the vampiric hold they have on so many Americans

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It has to be through education. This they know. This is why there are states that are altering their curriculum and this is why people like David Barton exist.

These people that firmly support them live their lives with one foot in the grave.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So that completes the circle- koch controls education - keep the children dumb

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I have a younger brother in high school. Guess what is required reading in his literature course?

Ayn Rand.

I should add that this is in Texas. I know you have heard about the curriculum issues recently.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

google Ayn Rand William Hickman
if you have a strong stomach ( seriously ) If you want to make sure your brother fails, have him write a report on these two wonders o f the earth

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

William Hickman was a sociopath that cared only about himself. Republicans like that. It makes it easier for them to be greedy and self-centered.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I could have probably spent my entire life without doing that. It's like the icing on the cake.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

LOL. So funny.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

That's terrible. They should be forced to give them Marx too, then.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

In Texas? They might (currently) drag him down the street if he even thought about the book cover.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

LOL! You're little bro is lucky to have you for a big sister as you can point him in other directions. It's a shame for the kids who don't have that.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

cotton mather rocks