Theocratic Treachery

[Emproph]

My intent for this thread is to keep it open for any items of interest that may shed light on how the religious right is spinning their attempts to promote a theocracy and undermine American Democracy.
__________________


I’m in the process of dissecting the interview that spawned this article in another thread (FOF/Citizenlink) and haven’t gotten to this part yet but I thought this was important enough to post separately.

From the article:

Many Americans continue to believe the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the U.S. Constitution...The phrase [is] from an 1802 letter President Jefferson wrote...

They link to the letter itself, but obfuscate (confuse) the fact that Thomas Jefferson quoted and described the first amendment as a "separation of Church and State."

From the letter they link to:

.., I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

From Mel White’s Religion Gone Bad:

Fundamentalist Christians wish with all their hearts that Jefferson had never written those words, because they leave no wiggle room for those who oppose the separation of church and state or state and church on the shaky ground that our forefathers didn’t use those exact words in the constitution.

From the article again:

...it's accurate to say, as Dr. Dobson did, Jefferson felt the First Amendment protected the church from government interference -- not the opposite."

There’s plenty to comment on, but what I'm getting is that they’re attempting to devalue the meaning of the first amendment by equating it with the words used to describe it.

The tactic itself isn’t surprising, but it’s usually reserved for the ‘tried and true’ anti-gay or anti-whatever rhetoric. Am I missing something here or do you think my assessment is accurate?

I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?

[Zerbie]

t.
I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?[/QUOTE]

I'm far from expert on this issue, but consider that if someone wants power and has to distort and lie in order to seize/maintain it, why would they not mislead their own base who does not want to know they are being lied to?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I'm far from expert on this issue, but consider that if someone wants power and has to distort and lie in order to seize/maintain it, why would they not mislead their own base who does not want to know they are being lied to?

I'm not an expert either, so that's why I want to be sure.

If you lie, you know some people are going to catch those lies. That's why this to me seems particularly cannibalistic.

I guess I'm wondering, are they that desperate now that the dems are in power, or are they just trying to put a positive spin on his blatantly anti-American wordage from the interview.

It would seem that the latter is the case, I just want to be sure before referring to him as a traitor (from now on ).

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

t.
I’m just having trouble believing they’re trying to confuse their own base so openly and obviously. Is there any other way to interpret this?

Hmmmm. I think Dobson has to confuse himself first before he confuses anyone else. After all, perception makes for projection. Ya see- and don't see- what ya want ta see. That's the power of the blindness of 'belief' at work.

Gay people don't really exist in his world. We're all just malformed heterosexuals.

It's really not a big leap for him to see the Constitution- not as it is- but as he wants it to be.

But as they say: reality bites.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's really not a big leap for him to see the Constitution- not as it is- but as he wants it to be.

That much I get. I'm trying to assess why they would risk coming across as anti-first amendment with those they supposedly respect.

They didn't mention or have articles about anything else in the interview. They seemed almost gleeful about this particular point though.

And well he should... illustrating the need for a better civics education.

[Daniel]

My brother, who is a missionary btw, repeatedly yammers on about how evangelicals arepersecuted by government.

Ergo: I think their thinking about the matter goes something like this.

1) Christians are persecuted/discriminated against by government.

2) America was founded on biblical principles and men of God.

therefore

3) that first amendment stuff isn't what they really meant- that's just the view of those who are persecuting us.

A 'logic'- if you can call it that- that is circular and self-sustaining.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

My brother, who is a missionary btw, repeatedly yammers on about how evangelicals arepersecuted by government.

Ergo: I think their thinking about the matter goes something like this.

By "their thinking," you mean ALL of them think this way, not just those spinning the "news." This is something they all have in common, like in the authoritarian thread (generally speaking of course).

In other words, of course it'll work! They'll believe anything we say, in fact we prepared for this kind of interview mishap years ago. Ergo - regarding our base - our formula of deception is self renewing. Those we lose can easily be replaced.

1) Christians are persecuted/discriminated against by government.

Now this sounds juicy. We've got two persecuted minorities. One officially percieved to be persecuted and the other not.
.....
.....
.....
They think their persecution of gays is just "another" piece of the puzzle because the flak they get from it is too close in intensity to the flak they get for everything else.

2) America was founded on biblical principles and men of God.

therefore

3) that first amendment stuff isn't what they really meant- that's just the view of those who are persecuting us.

But isn't religious persecution the reason why we white-folk left England in the first place?

......ooooooohhh, I get it now..

A 'logic'- if you can call it that- that is circular and self-sustaining.

Apparently not circular enough, if that's possible, and apparently it is.

[Daniel]

Emproph- my head is spinning! (no, not as in Linda Blair in the exorcist)

You have a fine sense of pychology- that's for sure. I can't keep up!

Yes. I was insinuating (nice juicy word that!) that there are fundamentalists/conservatives that have as much a 'ghetto' mentality as gays or blacks do. We all have the ruts we like and the ruts we don't like. And we can't see that the rut we are in is as much a rut as the other guy's rut.

rut rut rut rut rut

It is strange, considering that Puritans came here to excape persecution, that conservative/fundamentalists (being of the same cloth as those Puritans) now feel they cannot freely exercise their religious freedom. However, if my memory of American history serves me, the Europeans were awfully glad those Puritan's left. They couldn't stay out of other people's business.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html

The Puritans believed that the Bible was God's true law, and that it provided a plan for living. The established church of the day described access to God as monastic and possible only within the confines of "church authority". Puritans stripped away the traditional trappings and formalities of Christianity which had been slowly building throughout the previous 1500 years. Theirs was an attempt to "purify" the church and their own lives.

I see this as a simple case of not being able to keep track of one's projections.

And what do modern conservative/fundies want to do now? The same thing. 'Save' America. If left unchecked, we will have (if we don't already) the American Taliban on our hands.

THANK GOD FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html

Extrapolating from that article, their persecution complex is literally genetic. The only thing they couldn’t outrun was their DNA. I take it that’s the meaning behind the phrase "puritanical streak."

We’re through the looking glass here people..

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

We’re through the looking glass here people..

Mushrooms? Isn't that what Alice ate?

[BruceChris]

Guys, one argument that I haven't seen here is this. Courts, at all levels, when the law is somehow not clear, are always looking for original intent. Original intent is often looked for in transcripts of testimony, from when a law was being drafted. Jefferson, having the status of a minor diety to some scholars, was clearly expressing original intent.

On a constitutional scale, Supreme Court candidates are often judged as to whether they are strict constructionists.

Yeah, I know, the world changes, and the law needs to change with it. But we are dealing with people here who are in denial of change. It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.

Hey, I'm still in denial about no longer being 17, but I try not to take myself too seroiusly.

P&L, BC

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by Emproph

They link to the letter itself, but obfuscate (confuse) the fact that Thomas Jefferson quoted and described the first amendment as a "separation of Church and State."

» Thom says: ☛ Interesting, isn’t it? They cry “There is not separation between Church and State!” and yet when the state imposes some tax or other law on the Church, they cry, “Leave us alone!”


Actually, they address religion in three parts of the Constitution. We most readily know of the First amendment. Some even understand the sixth article with allows for an oath of public office, but forbids using religion as a test of qualification for that office.

And I noticed as I am reading Religion Gone Bad, where the preamble is presented: We the people of the United States … do ordain this Constitution. ~«

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

We all have the ruts we like and the ruts we don't like.

Nope never. My rut is better than their rut, period! Neener Neener Neener!

Originally Posted by Daniel

Mushrooms? Isn't that what Alice ate?

What are you implying?

Originally Posted by Daniel

THANK GOD FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

I missed that little gem of oxymoronica the first time around. Good one, I stole it you know..

Originally Posted by BruceChris

It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.

I think that last part is a profound observation.

I think (from much recent experience) that kind of “faith” is indicative of the sincerest form of idolatry. To the extent that one’s faith is based on denial, it is based on the acceptance of only that truth which one chooses, or wants to believe – making the final authority of truth, one’s own self judgement. Ergo the 'worship' of one's own ego.

They are unrepentant idolaters, blind to their own sin. Sound familiar? Even if we were what they claim we are, we don’t hold an unrepentant candle to them. Heartening news I know..

It seems to me that there’s little hope of getting through to them as long as they’re in their element – surrounded only by those who reinforce the delusion.

Originally Posted by BronzDragon

[left] » Thom says: ? Interesting, isn’t it? They cry “There is not separation between Church and State!” and yet when the state imposes some tax or other law on the Church, they cry, “Leave us alone!”

Don't mean to spoil the ending but, From Religion Gone Bad:

During the first stages of the current fundamentalist takeover of church and state in America, fundamentalists loved the First Amendment's Establishment clause...They used it as a shield to protect their growing influence from laws or ruling that might limit their rise to power. Now that they have a majority in Congress, they want to withdraw that shield of protection from the rest of us.

They might have a point had they put a "clause" within the Establishment clause, stating that it was time/political-power sensetive.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I missed that little gem of oxymoronica the first time around. Good one, I stole it you know..

Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)

What could I add? It's perfect.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by Emproph

They are unrepentant idolaters, blind to their own sin. Sound familiar? Even if we were what they claim we are, we don’t hold an unrepentant candle to them. Heartening news I know ...

» Thom says: ☛ I have learned a definition for Idolatry that might apply here. Idolatry is not the worship of false images. There is no such thing as a false image. Images are artistic representations, and like myth are conveyers of truth.

Idolatry is the false worship of images. Interesting twist, that. As I said, an image is an artistic representation. Like saying a one dollar bill represents one dollar in gold or credit. It doesn't really, it represents (at minimum wage) about ten minutes of work. By focusing on the dollar we miss the effort that went into earning it.

I expect that we intended many of the earliest versions of divine icons as artistic representations of the divine relationship with the artist or society, and the god or daimon that image represented. Subsequent generations failed to see that, and so simply never got past the statue to the god it represents.

I read John Bunion’s Pilgrim’s Progress some years back. I came away with a lot. One point I came a way with is, Pilgrim did indeed get to the Cross, then he went beyond it. I expect a lot of Christians get to the Cross, and stop. When Christ got beyond, he died and awakened from death. Like Woden, he sacrificed his self to his Self, and there-by gained the world.

Yes, I ramble sometimes, and accidently say something interesting. There it is.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BronzDragon

Idolatry is the false worship of images. Interesting twist, that. As I said, an image is an artistic representation. Like saying a one dollar bill represents one dollar in gold or credit. It doesn't really, it represents (at minimum wage) about ten minutes of work. By focusing on the dollar we miss the effort that went into earning it.

I expect that we intended many of the earliest versions of divine icons as artistic representations of the divine relationship with the artist or society, and the god or daimon that image represented. Subsequent generations failed to see that, and so simply never got past the statue to the god it represents.

Some years ago I started 'writing' (they don't call it drawing) an icon in the Byzantine style/school- the earliest style actually. The interesting thing about them is that there are no straight lines contained within the figures represented. The representation of an earthy 'object'? Yes. Divine 'object'? No. As such, from what I have gleaned, they are considered within the tradition- historically speaking- representations of mystical experience.

My own musings on the matter immediately went to the difference in how the brain processes information.

It seems to me that idolatry is straight line -point A to B -kind of thinking. Left brained, you might say. "Do it this way or else." The experience of the divine is something alltogether different, right-brained, curvy, full of nuance and global in scope. No set limitations. In fact, the absence of limitation it what it's all about.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ah.....I now have the most fabulous drag name.....thank you!


Q: What's your name dear?

A: OXYMORONICA......but you can call me OXY. (Batting false eyes-lashes)

Omigosh, Daniel, that's awesome!!

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Guys, one argument that I haven't seen here is this. Courts, at all levels, when the law is somehow not clear, are always looking for original intent. Original intent is often looked for in transcripts of testimony, from when a law was being drafted. Jefferson, having the status of a minor diety to some scholars, was clearly expressing original intent.

On a constitutional scale, Supreme Court candidates are often judged as to whether they are strict constructionists.

Yeah, I know, the world changes, and the law needs to change with it. But we are dealing with people here who are in denial of change. It might be said that if someone is truly in denial, they cannot be said to be hypocrites. And what is worse, is that to the believer, denial is indistinguishable from Faith.

Hey, I'm still in denial about no longer being 17, but I try not to take myself too seroiusly.

P&L, BC

It's an odd argument, really, because generally the kinds of folks who are supporting the kind of agenda that Dobson et al support tend to be aligned with the strict constructionist (ie, text only) or original intent (ie, text + gloss as to what original drafters meant) crowd ... unless of course the evidence of the original intent isn't in favour of their own perspectives ...

The establishment clause has a long jurisprudential history, and can't reasonably be read on the basis of the mere words alone, 200 years after they were written (or on the basis of what Jefferson wrote, either, really). I think in general the attitude reflects a profound disagreement with the concept of judicial review because this is seen as "anti-democratic" ... but alas without judicial review, we are simply left with majoritarian goodwill as the guarantor of minority rights, and of course that doesn't work very well, as we all know.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

... but alas without judicial review, we are simply left with majoritarian goodwill as the guarantor of minority rights, and of course that doesn't work very well, as we all know.

In other words:

"In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny."

Words written by Alexis De Tocqueville in his Democracy In American 1835. Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences - Part II

As far as judicial review is concerned, I believe our rights will not be furthered, as has been noted by many scholars, until gay people are considered a distinct 'class' - as blacks were in the attainment of civil right.