The Enemy Within
Let me share with you two quotes I found interesting.
Now as Christians we believe that the basic starting point is the regeneration of man. Then man takes and applies that faith. For Christians the basic government is the self-government of the Christian man. Then the basic governmental unit is the family. This means that every father and mother will be more important in the sight of God than heads of state, because He controls children, property and the future. Then the third is the church as the government, fourth the school as a government, fifth your job governs you, then sixth society governs you with its ideas, beliefs and standards, and seventh, one among many forms of government, is the civil government.
The inheritance which has fallen to us is a terrible one. The task with which we are faced is the hardest which has fallen to [our] statesmen within the memory of man. But we are all filled with unbounded confidence for we believe in our people and their imperishable virtues. Every class and every individual must help us to found the new [nation].
The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life….
Turbulent instincts must be replaced by a national discipline as the guiding principle of our national life.
The first quote is from the late RJ Rushdoony [source], founder of the Chalcedon Foundation and one of the architects of Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominionism. It’s a glimpse into the movement’s plans for America. The second quote is from Adolf Hitler [source], a lunatic who needs no introduction. There are differences, but they are overwhelmed by the similarities.
Dominionism is an inherently anti-democratic philosophy. In fact, Rushdoony said “History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.” To me, that sounds like a good description of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. The short-term goal of the Christian Reconstructionists is a theocratic America. Their long-term goal is a global Christian theocracy to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ. There is only one other movement in the world today with similar goals. Usama Bin-Laden seeks the reestablishment of the Caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia.
My friends, Christian Reconstructionism and Muslim Fundamentalism are the two most dangerous ideologies in the world today. Under either, unbelievers would be oppressed at best. At worst, who can say? Which is more of a threat? The Muslims can only blow us up; the Dominionists get to vote. Al-Qaeda can take our lives, but Christian Reconstructionists can take our country, and ultimately, our freedom.
Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War “Do what is difficult while it is still easy;
do what is great while it is still small.” This rising threat must be nipped in the bud before it gains too much power, or there is a revolution coming. Right now, the majority of Americans don’t even know this philosophy exists. Even Christians should fear it, since most of them are considered traitors to the faith by Dominionist standards. Educate yourself. Tell your friends.
For a powerful piece on Dominionism, visit Yurica Report. Katherine Yurica clearly has a strong, left-wing political agenda, but she’s done an otherwise excellent job detailing the growth of Dominionism and the threat it poses. Pay particular attention to the section entitled Strauss’s Student, Harry Jaffa on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson and the passage from Romans 13.
~I AM~
May 24th, 2005 at at 1:22 am
My brain is a bit fried tonight from excessive studying, however this was a truly exciting, inspiring post. I’ve been trying to get people to realize that the real problem is fundamentalism… Christian or any other flavor… it’s all bad news, and far more dangerous than people appreciate.
I like my freedoms. For example, I don’t like abortion, but I don’t want some right-ring Christian freak telling me what to do with my body, either. Did you know (I’m sure you did, since you’re so knowledgeable and bright) that some pharmacists have refused to fill birth control pills because they see them as “abortion” pills? Many doctors (especially in Texas) have refused to even prescribe them… never mind that many women need them for medical reasons beyond BC!
Anyway, I’m off the topic a bit… but I’m just saying I know it’s well under way; this trend towards ultra-conservativism – or radical Christianity, if you prefer.
I AM. I am very glad we have your eloquent. educated voice added to the debate. Do you ever date readers??? J/K. Well, mostly.
May 24th, 2005 at at 7:11 am
I realize you are just starting this blog, but I wanted to let you know that it is outstanding so far. I’ve added you to my RSS aggregator, and I’m in the process of adding you to my BlogRoll. In other words, I’ll be a regular reader and try to steer some people here. Keep up the good work!
May 24th, 2005 at at 10:12 am
Actually addict, I AM has chosen me as his designated dater. I am supposed to date all stimulating women that come to this website
I was glad to see this post. It’s important to realize that the blind patriots in America who fight and argue so vehemently against the islamic terrorists who threaten to take away our liberty turn around and support the christian fundamentalists who are planning the exact same thing. Fiscal conservatives (big business) need to realize that their traditional party has been hijacked by these radical christians and that without them speaking out they will see the government grow even more large and obstructive than it is now. Since most fiscal conservatives are very strong supporters of small government they should fear this development.
I’ll go check out the Yurica report link now. Keep up the good work EA.
May 24th, 2005 at at 12:06 pm
I feel it necessary to put my twist on the issue, since Delta brought up fiscal conservatism.
I, being more or less Libertarian politically, am very concerned about the religious right. Fiscal conservatisim needs to be broken away from the religious rhetoric that is found in the Republican party. Unfortunately, our political system won’t allow for more than two major political parties – thus, I support the abolition of the “winner-take-all” political system we have in the U.S. and exchange it for something where the pie can be sliced up a bit more. I think the most damaging preception in American politics is that it is all black and white.
May 24th, 2005 at at 6:27 pm
I agree with you whole-heartedly Stephen. Proportional representation would not only help in separating the libertarians from the conservatives, but would also give Americans the idea that their vote, even if it was not for the majority candidate, would still count. Politics would seem more accessible to all Americans as a result.
From some polls that I’ve seen, most of America does not hold the typical positions that are held by social conservatives. If libertarians were separated out then this would be much more apparent.
May 24th, 2005 at at 8:51 pm
As far back as 1992, I felt there were no good (viable) political choices to be made in the United States. The hijacking of the Republican party by the sinister forces of the Christian right over the last five years has made a bad situation desparate. The country has no options now for fiscally conservative atheists. Maybe proportional representation is a step in the right direction. I haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid on that one yet. I’ve looked to alternative voting methods for a solution. There was a great article about it in Discover magazine in 2000.
As for dating readers, I don’t think my wife would care for that. If I were to appoint an official dater, Delta would have to be it as my most active commenter thus far.
P.S. Delta, don’t you feel a little silly claiming to be the “chosen one” on an atheist blog?
May 25th, 2005 at at 1:06 pm
I really enjoyed that article, Mr. Am. I would defintiely prefer either one of those to what we have now. A good first step would be doing away with the electoral college.
May 25th, 2005 at at 2:35 pm
“I haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid on that one yet.”—is this an allusion to Vonnegut’s “Fates worth than death”?
“As for dating readers, I don’t think my wife would care for that. If I were to appoint an official dater, Delta would have to be it as my most active commenter thus far.
P.S. Delta, don’t you feel a little silly claiming to be the “chosen one” on an atheist blog?”
Yes yes, perhaps I am a bit of a savior. If I accept all the lust and sexual desire for myself, I will spare you all the sinful acts. Actually, my fiancee wouldn’t be too keen on me having that position either
And since you gave us a glimpse of your personal life with the comment that you have a wife, I am curious to know more intimate details. What line of work are you in? As for me, I’m a physics graduate student.
May 25th, 2005 at at 3:39 pm
No, it’s a reference to Jonestown. I haven’t read any Vonnegut.
No. I’m ineffable.
May 25th, 2005 at at 4:17 pm
Ahh, fair enough. Then in that case I take back that I’m a physics grad student
May 25th, 2005 at at 4:23 pm
“I haven’t read any Vonnegut.”
You should, he is great. I love him. Just before I realized I was an atheist (back when I suffered from a slight case of faith) I decided I was a member of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent, from “The Sirens of Titan”.
May 25th, 2005 at at 5:53 pm
Delta,
Although you’ve just started this blog, I’m hooked. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the C. Foundation. You’re right; they really are nuts. For instance, they are pushing the whole “daddies are owners of daughters” thing to an icky extent.
I’ve added this blog’s headlines to the Religion/Irreligion page on Irregular Times. I hope it adds some readers.
May 25th, 2005 at at 6:27 pm
You’re right, it is a kickass blog, but it’s certainly not mine. I’ll pass your praise onto I AM
May 26th, 2005 at at 1:00 pm
Delta, who says a physics grad student is a line of work! Anyway, I like the thread on fiscal conservancy. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and as a result have found it very difficult to switch away from voting for the Republicans. However, with the recent hijacking by the religious right, the idea is getting easier. But where to go?
I like some of the thoughts from the Libertarians, but the last candidate they put up for governor in MA (where I live) was an idiot. She was extreme (eliminate the state income tax completely – with no means for continuing some essential services?) and purely a one issue candidate. Meanwhile, Romney was able to speak eloquently and intelligently on almost any subject (whether you agreed with him or not, it certainly helps one get elected).
I think there a couple of major barriers to having a multi-party system in this country. One is the status quo. Most people have simply divided themselves into two camps and grown up to believe that anything other than a Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote. I don’t think many people realize that in other democratic countries, a two party system is extremely rare. Look at England, Japan and Israel; they all have multiple parties battling it out.
Of course the second and biggest barrier is the established system. It now takes an enormous amount of money to elect a president or even a senator to congress that it almost instantly excludes any lesser party. How can you compete? What’s the solution? Start small with the lower offices and realize that it will take decades to change, but it has to start somewhere. Remember when it was the big 3 networks and noone else. Now, all of a sudden, Fox is on top of everything! So it can happen.
BTW, great blog so far!
May 26th, 2005 at at 1:09 pm
That is true Chad, my learning of physics is absolutely useless to the world until I get a real job or apply it to a real-life problem.
May 27th, 2005 at at 2:54 am
I Am (or anyone with some ideas), What do you think it will take to stop Dominionism? When I think of Islam, for example, I think of little room for differing opinions. There can’t be that many moderate muslims or a single liberal muslim. Is that an oxymoron? Liberal muslim? I feel like the only answer to stopping islamic fundamentilism is the dreadful thought of attempted genocide. Is this an extreme view? And if it isn’t, are we looking using at the same ’solution’ for christian fundamentalists/dominionists if we wait too long?
May 27th, 2005 at at 9:19 pm
boywonder:
I think the key to stopping Dominionism in America is exposure. This is a small minority with a fringe point of view. Most mainstream Christians would oppose them if two things happened. First, they have to know about it. My only exposure to this in the major media was a 10 second spot on CNN. Second, they have to see that the moral and cultural downfall heralded by the Dominionists isn’t really happening. In other words, they have to know that atheists aren’t evil. To achieve that, we have to be organized and vocal without unintentionally enforcing any negative stereotypes in our fervor to speak against god. The atheist groups in existence now spend a lot of time dealing with separation of church and state and not nearly enough time on good PR for atheism.
As for Muslim Fundamentalism, there’s just too much to say here. I’m planning a post about that in the near future. I already have the topics for my next 21 posts prepared, so be patient. I have to give it more thought.
May 29th, 2005 at at 6:16 pm
I AM, I agree with Sam Harris’s (“The End of Faith”) opinion that the Kuran (sp?) is filled with more straightforward hatred than the bible. Muslim governments also not only encourage Islam, they demand it. The promise of virins and such in the afterlife by a Jihad is further testimony to the important placed on sacrifice for one’s religion. Indeed, muslims are enboldened by their faith to kill. To kill a daughter for being raped and hence, losing the father’s honor, is expected. A son who doubts the faith is killed. And that is still considered acceptable- even advisable- by their society. What percentage of muslims do you think thought Sept. 11th was a deplorable act? What percentage cheered? The difference between the two is your middle ground. Islam is even more antiquated than christianity. Their culture in general is about four-hundred years behind us. I don’t demand adherence to modern technology, but no moral or philosophical growth is horrifying. Indeed we are still immature about our treatment of one another, but they are downright barbarous.
June 1st, 2005 at at 9:36 pm
boywonder: You (and Sam Harris) may be right. I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject. I am planning to pick up the book, but I have a few others in front of it. I certainly agree that the Middle East would be better off without Islam, no matter how you look at it. When you start talking about genocide, though, you lose me. My enemy is Islam, not Muslims. Well, maybe the ones that want to kill me, but that’s it.
June 2nd, 2005 at at 7:39 pm
I know I sound extreme. Believe me, I don’t like war, let alone wiping out an entire race of people. It took me awhile to come to terms with what I believe to be the main problem with muslims. That problem is that to be a muslim is to believe in Islam. To believe in Islam means to be against anyone who is not Islamic. Period. There is NO middleground. Do I think I am overgeneralizing? Unfortunately, no. I also know genocide is not an option. The US is already too close to becoming a facist country as it is. That doesn’t prevent me from thinking about what I believe to be the only real solution. I think it was Sun Tzu who said “Your enemy’s enemy is your friend”. Right now that means Christians are our allies. They are the lesser of two evils.
June 2nd, 2005 at at 8:06 pm
I Am, What other books are you putting in front of Sam Harris’? I wondered what kind of stuff you were into reading. By the way, I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know everything about the middle east. I certainly don’t believe every man, woman, and child who is Islamic is waitng for us with a bomb strapped to their chest. I just think there is no reasoning with them because of their stupid religion. I also think christianity will present similar problems for us in the not too distant future. In this regard, I am probably in the minority. I get the impression most people think religion will simply go away when the light of reason is shown through. If this were true, religion would be gone already. Our purposeful apathy and tolerance to religion needs to change.
June 3rd, 2005 at at 12:10 am
I have two other reader recommendations in the hopper. I’m working on The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind right now. Despite the terrifyingly boring title, it’s a pretty good read so far. I’m then planning to go to Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought.