MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

A Nation Under God

News: Let others worry about the rapture: For the increasingly powerful Christian Reconstruction movement, the task is to establish the Kingdom of God right now—from the courthouse to the White House.

December/January 2006 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

TRINITY CHAPEL in suburban Atlanta’s Cobb County is hardly the picture of a revolutionary outpost. It’s a stylishly modern Church of God—a denomination that, though conservative, is certainly mainstream. Parishioners are drawn from a community whose average income is a comfortable 35 percent above the national norm, whose tree-lined country roads intersect McMansion subdivisions. If Norman Rockwell were painting suburban sprawl, he’d likely pick Cobb County.

On a Friday last April, Trinity’s parking lot filled with SUVs and luxury sedans as about 400 faithful gathered inside the sanctuary. The church was host to Restore America, a rally to “celebrate faith and patriotism” sponsored by Christian publisher American Vision. In the lobby, neatly blue-blazered youths were hawking So Help Me God, Roy Moore’s account of his dethroning as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Tables were piled with textbooks for homeschoolers, tomes denouncing evolution, booklets waxing nostalgic for the antebellum South. That afternoon the congregants, who’d come to the conference from conservative churches around the region, would hear from Sadie Fields, president of Georgia’s Christian Coalition, and they’d sway in rhythm as country crooner Steve Vaus sang “We Must Take America Back.”

But the marquee pitchman of the day was Moore. Ruggedly handsome, with the military bearing he acquired at West Point, Moore has gained a rock-star following on the Christian right—a Moses to lead the chosen from a godless society. The judge has a stunning memory for long literary passages and judicial opinions, and he chants them in the singsongy, down-home style of Southern demagogues from Theo Bilbo to George Wallace—“God” is “Gawud,” with an upward lilt. When he proclaimed that “God is still sovereign, no matter what federal judges say,” the crowd tittered and applauded. When he intoned that “there is no right to sodomy in the Constitution,” they cheered. When he roared that unless judges “acknowledge God,” they “should be impeached,” the righteous noise shook the rafters.

It could have been nothing more than a half-hour rebel yell—except that Moore is more than the latest prophet of the religious right. He stands a good chance of being the next governor of Alabama; he’s also arguably the single most significant politician to owe his ascendancy to Christian Reconstruction—an obscure but increasingly potent theology whose top exponents hold that Christian crusaders must conquer and convert the world, by the sword if necessary, before Jesus will return.

Moore has never declared himself a Reconstructionist. But he is a frequent orator at gatherings whose organizers are part of the movement. The primary theologians, activists, and websites of Reconstruction laud him as a hero. Moore’s lawyer in the Ten Commandments fight, Herb Titus, is a Reconstructionist, as are many of his most vocal supporters, including Gary DeMar, the organizer of the Restore America rally and the head of American Vision, one of the most prolific publishers of the movement.

Reconstruction is the spark plug behind much of the battle over religion in politics today. The movement’s founder, theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, claimed 20 million followers—a number that includes many who embrace the Reconstruction tenets without having joined any organization. Card-carrying Reconstructionists are few, but their influence is magnified by their leadership in Christian right crusades, from abortion to homeschooling.

Reconstructionists also exert significant clout through front organizations and coalitions with other religious fundamentalists; Baptists, Anglicans, and others have deep theological differences with the movement, but they have made common cause with its leaders in groups such as the National Coalition for Revival. Reconstruction has slowly absorbed, congregation by congregation, the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (not to be confused with the progressive Presbyterian Church [USA]) and has heavily influenced others, notably the Southern Baptists.

George W. Bush has called Reconstruction-influenced theoretician Marvin Olasky “compassionate conservatism’s leading thinker,” and Olasky served as one of the president’s key advisers on the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bush also invited Reconstructionist Jack Hayford, a key figure in the Promise Keepers men’s group, to give the benediction at his first inaugural. Deposed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, though his office won’t comment on his religious views, governs with what he calls a “biblical worldview”—one of Reconstruction’s signature phrases. And, for conspiracy buffs, two heavy contributors to the Chalcedon Foundation—Reconstruction’s main think tank—are Howard Ahmanson and Nelson Bunker Hunt, both of whose families played key roles in financing electronic voting machine manufacturer Election Systems & Software. Ahmanson is also a major sponsor of ultraconservative politicians, including California state legislator and 2003 gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock.

Yet for all its influence, Reconstruction is almost invisible to the media and secular society. Atlanta is ground zero for most Reconstruction activity—home office to DeMar’s publishing house and home district to movement prophet Larry McDonald, who served four terms in Congress in the 1970s and 1980s—but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has done only one major article on the movement. The entire Lexis-Nexis database includes only 43 articles from all of the U.S. media that make reference to Reconstruction, and only a handful of those explore the movement. “A hundred years ago, newspapers published the sermons preachers preached on Sunday,” notes Ed Larson, a University of Georgia historian. “Everyone knew what the Baptists believed, or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians. That’s no longer the case. And it has worked to the benefit of Reconstructionists as they doggedly pursued their goal.”

Reconstructionists aren’t shy about what exactly it is they are pursuing: “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,” Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.”

 

WITH HIS KHAKI PANTS and checkered shirts, Gary DeMar could be one of a million guys meeting weekly in men’s groups at churches around the country. Bright and articulate, he’s soft-spoken until he gets in front of a crowd. His publishing house distributes hundreds of tracts, more than 20 of them written by DeMar himself, with titles such as The Politically Incorrect Guides to Islam (and the Crusades), which promises “all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West,” and The Marketing of Evil, which covers everything “from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers.”

I first met DeMar 18 months ago at his church, Midway Presbyterian, in the Atlanta suburb of Powder Springs, where he was teaching a class on government. During the session, a teenage homeschooler talked about how he had tried in a paper to prove that the family is a form of “Christian government.” “You don’t have to prove that,” DeMar gently chided, and then added, with more heat: “That’s established—established by God!” DeMar’s lecture focused on the “three governments”—family, church, and state—all of which, he told me, should be ruled by God-fearing men.

The Old Testament—with its 600 or so Mosaic laws—is the inflexible guide for the society DeMar and other Reconstructionists envision. Government posts would be reserved for the righteous, as long as they are male. There would be thousands of executions a year, with stoning a preferred method because it would turn the deaths into “community projects,” as movement theologian North has noted. Sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men (lesbians, however, would be spared because no specific reference to them can be found in the Books of Moses). DeMar told me that among Reconstructionists he is considered something of a liberal, because he’d execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy. “I’m happy to just drive them back into the closet,” he said.

In introducing Moore at the Trinity Chapel rally, DeMar told the crowd that he supports a “jurisdictional separation of church and state.” But he was not mounting a defense of the First Amendment so much as outlining an organizational distinction. In his book Liberty at Risk, DeMar writes that “the State cannot be neutral towards the Christian faith. Any obstacle that would jeopardize the preaching of the Word of God…must be opposed by civil government.”

Besides facilitating evangelism, Reconstructionists believe, government should largely be limited to building and maintaining roads, enforcing land-use contracts, and ensuring just weights and measures. Unions would not exist, and neither would unemployment benefits, Social Security, and environmental protection laws. Public schools would disappear; one of the movement’s great successes has been promoting homeschooling programs and publishing texts used by tens of thousands of homeschooling families. And, perhaps most importantly, the state is “God’s minister,” as DeMar puts it in Liberty at Risk, “taking vengeance out on those who do evil.” A major task for the government key Reconstructionists envision is fielding armies for conquest in the name of Jesus.

Reconstruction’s premises may fly in the face of mainstream Christianity, and some of its leaders’ beliefs would probably surprise even the movement’s own foot soldiers. But what has made the theology such an explosive addition to public life is not its dogma on individual issues so much as its trumpet call to action. This is a faith in which religion is not an influence on politics; it is politics.

 

FOR DECADES AFTER the 1925 Scopes monkey trial, Christian fundamentalists were almost invisible in civic discourse. Then, in 1981, a book by scholar Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, heralded a counterattack. America, Schaeffer argued, was careening into the abyss of humanistic secularism. Christians needed to take bold action to restore biblical principles and erase divisions between religion and civic life. To ignite the movement, Schaeffer mapped out a battle campaign—a crusade against abortion, which, he said, “would be worth spending much of our lifetimes to fight against.”

For years, the antiabortion movement had been mostly Catholic. Schaeffer understood that the cause had the potential to galvanize broad masses of Protestants. “Schaeffer made abortion an issue for Christians more than anyone else, and he commanded Christian soldiers to start marching,” says the University of Georgia’s Larson. Manifesto sold almost 250,000 copies the year after Ronald Reagan became president—a period when the nation was veering to the right after becoming exhausted from the social movements of the previous two decades.

If Schaeffer was Reconstruction’s John the Baptist, Rushdoony was its pope. Born in 1916 to Armenian immigrants, Rushdoony graduated from the University of California-Berkeley before becoming an ardent foe of secular education and the author of a series of texts that redefined conservative theology.

Rushdoony, who died in 2001, articulated a doctrine called “presuppositionalism.” All issues are religious in nature, he posited, and people don’t have the right or the ability to define for themselves what’s true; for that they must turn to a literal reading of the Bible. His defining tome, the 800-page Institutes of Biblical Law, was published in 1973. But because of its extremism and overt racism—Rushdoony denied the Holocaust and defended segregation and slavery—Institutes and its author were largely ignored in mainstream circles until the movement launched by Schaeffer found its intellectual grounding in Rushdoony’s writings.

At the heart of Rushdoony’s argument were two biblical passages. Genesis 1:28 commands men to have “dominion” over “every living thing.” And in Matthew 28:18-20, the “Great Commission,” Jesus commands his followers to proselytize to the world. Thus was born dominion theology. (Not all dominionists are Reconstruction apostles—but the differences are a matter of theological finesse, and political strategies are largely indistinguishable.) Adam and Eve broke their covenant with God, and Satan seized dominion. Christian Reconstruction claims it has a reconstituted covenant with God and the right to a new dominion in his name.

In this worldview, the mandate for Christians is not just to live right or to help their neighbors: They are called upon to take over or eliminate the institutions of secular government.

This is what sets Reconstruction apart from the conventional Christian right and gives it a key advantage in organizing.

Traditionally, groups like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority were “premillennial”: They believed that humanity was inevitably headed for Armageddon, which would most likely arrive with a nuclear blast, whereupon Christ would appear in the Second Coming and set things right. “The debate was over whether Brezhnev was the Antichrist,” says the University of Georgia’s Larson.

Reconstruction’s alternative was “postmillennialism”: Christ would not return until the church had claimed dominion over government, and most of the world’s population had accepted the Reconstruction brand of Christianity. The postmillennial twist offered hope to the pious that they could change things—as long as they got organized. (Reconstructionists angrily denounce end-times visions like those of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series: If these are the Last Days, American Vision’s website points out, “then why bother trying to fix a broken world that is about to be thrown on the ash heap of history? Why concern ourselves with education, healthcare, the economy, or peace in the Mideast? Why polish brass on a sinking ship?”)

For premillennialists, Reconstruction’s revolutionary philosophy offered an opportunity to turbocharge the religious right. Most conservative churches opposed abortion, for example, but Reconstruction-influenced groups such as Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue were willing to field soldiers and take the fight to the enemy. This not only emboldened activists, it gave Reconstructionists a chance to spread their organizing message: If you want to do God’s work, this needs to be God’s nation.

Similarly, Baptist morality focused on personal choices, such as avoiding drinking. But Reconstructionists didn’t tell believers to shun sin. They said to conquer it, even if the price was jail or martyrdom. Paul Hill, the antiabortion activist executed two years ago for the 1994 murders of abortion clinic workers in Pensacola, Florida, had been a minister in the Reconstruction-dominated Presbyterian Church in America.

The old left—the Communist Party and its many splinters—used organizing tactics called popular fronts, in which people were recruited through specific causes into a

movement tacitly guided by the Party. Reconstruction has married those Leninist tactics to the causes of the right—abortion, evolution, gay marriage, school prayer. Gary North wrote in 1982, in an effort to reach Baptists,“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty…until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” Nowhere at the Restore America rally did anyone hoist a banner for Reconstruction; those attending came to develop a united front supporting such things as displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. But they were also introduced—and recruited—to the broader program.

Reconstruction’s major impact has been through helping to found and guide cross-denominational and secular political organ-izations. The Council for National Policy—a group that holds meetings for right-wing leaders, once dubbed “the most powerful conservative group you’ve never heard of”—was founded in 1981 as a project of top John Birch Society figures (see “The Fountainhead”). Its members included Rushdoony, Gary North, Tim LaHaye, former Reagan aide Gary Bauer, and activist Paul Weyrich, who famously aimed to “overturn the present power structure of this country.”

Another group, the Coalition on Revival, brings together influential evangelicals to produce joint statements and theological white papers. North and DeMar are among the coalition’s most influential members; one of its founding documents is signed by 116 Christian right activists, including Rushdoony, mega-evangelist D. James Kennedy, and Roy Jones, a top staffer at the Republican Senatorial Committee.

When I last saw Gary DeMar, he was shepherding Roy Moore through a crowd of true believers at the Restore America rally. As they walked by, I asked Moore, “Do you favor a theocracy?” The judge turned and looked at me, shook his head, frowned, and walked away. But DeMar, in our interview, had already answered the question.

“All governments are theocracies,” he said. “We now live in a secular humanist theocracy. I want to change that to a government with God at its head.”

John Sugg is senior editor for the Creative Loafing group of alternative newsweeklies. Before joining Tampa's Weekly Planet in 1995, he wrote and edited for the Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution, Palm Beach Post, and American Lawyer. He is at work on a book on the history of the antievolution movement in Georgia.

Illustration By: John Hersey



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

And these people dare to call themselves Christian? As a Christian, I believe we are supposed to live in imitation of Christ, a friend to sinners who coming upon a group of men about to stone a woman caught in adultery invited he who was without sin to cast the first stone.Jesus's relation with women was very unusual for his time as well. Anyone who wants to live by the most repressive interpretations of Mosaic law should stop calling themselves Christians. Their attitudes are very similar to those angry Muslims who misinterpret their religion and use it as an excuse for terror, In fact extreme fundamentalists of any genre are very very scary but I doubt it is God to whom they pray. Peace be with you.
Posted by:FiJune 25, 2007 12:59:09 PMRespond ^
How can people believe this and think they are living as Jesus would want them to? The "devil" has a sneaky way of taking a good message and perverting it. Jesus' teachings (although not easy to follow) are very simple. Love yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love God, don't put any earthly "idols" (money, power, etc.) before God. I think there's something about loving your enemy in there too. :) In summary, Jesus said to be love. Don't hurt anybody else, friend or enemy. How can people ignore a worldwide mantra? Jesus' message of all-encompassing love can be found in the texts of all other major religions! A message not so much about HOW to worship God, (don't you think an omnipresent being deserves to be worshiped in more than one way?) but HOW TO LOVE. I weep for these people. I pray hard for their souls. But even though they have opposite beliefs which seem scary to me, I try my best not to hate them. Further yet, I’m trying my best to love them. Simply put, because that's what God wants. That's the real message of God. It doesn’t mean that by me trying to love them, I think they’re doing the right thing, or obeying God’s message. It just means I’m trying to listen to what God commands us all to do. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that an all-powerful being cannot be contained to one religion – or described so humans can understand by just one religion. Converting (forcefully, if necessary) everybody to one religion cannot work, it will be the crusades all over again. There is NO morality in that. That would hurt God knows how many people, working directly against the teachings of Jesus - to try to spread Jesus’ message of love? What? Instead, if anybody with even a SLIGHTLY inquiring mind starts looking for common messages in different religious texts, then the true majesty, the awesome, universal power of something greater than any of us, greater than all of us becomes apparent and obvious. Praise God!
Posted by:StineAugust 6, 2007 8:48:45 AMRespond ^
How can people believe this and think they are living as Jesus would want them to? The "devil" has a sneaky way of taking a good message and perverting it. Jesus' teachings (although not easy to follow) are very simple. Love yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love God, don't put any earthly "idols" (money, power, etc.) before God. I think there's something about loving your enemy in there too. :) In summary, Jesus said to be love. Don't hurt anybody else, friend or enemy. How can people ignore a worldwide mantra? Jesus' message of all-encompassing love can be found in the texts of all other major religions! A message not so much about HOW to worship God, (don't you think an omnipresent being deserves to be worshiped in more than one way?) but HOW TO LOVE. I weep for these people. I pray hard for their souls. But even though they have opposite beliefs which seem scary to me, I try my best not to hate them. Further yet, I’m trying my best to love them. Simply put, because that's what God wants. That's the real message of God. It doesn’t mean that by me trying to love them, I think they’re doing the right thing, or obeying God’s message. It just means I’m trying to listen to what God commands us all to do. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that an all-powerful being cannot be contained to one religion – or described so humans can understand by just one religion. Converting (forcefully, if necessary) everybody to one religion cannot work, it will be the crusades all over again. There is NO morality in that. That would hurt God knows how many people, working directly against the teachings of Jesus - to try to spread Jesus’ message of love? What? Instead, if anybody with even a SLIGHTLY inquiring mind starts looking for common messages in different religious texts, then the true majesty, the awesome, universal power of something greater than any of us, greater than all of us becomes apparent and obvious. Praise God!
Posted by:StineAugust 6, 2007 8:54:48 AMRespond ^
publishing something by this jerk, is another reason why I don't read your publication
Posted by:EdAugust 15, 2007 9:19:40 PMRespond ^
This article certainly does not portray the dominion reconstructionist theology with any accuracy. I encourage all of you reading this to research for yourself, as it is life-changing... it is definately not hostile and totalitarian as this writer has lead his readers to believe. For a proper understanding of the Biblical theology of dominion (which is the best perspective I have ever heard), please read David Chilton's "Paradise Restored". God Bless.
Posted by:Leah SmithAugust 16, 2007 4:46:41 PMRespond ^
Yet another example of why religion-ALL religion-is just plain evil..... They are no different from the Taliban, Zionist Jews, Southern Baptists, and Catholics.
Posted by:big krisyAugust 19, 2007 8:09:56 AMRespond ^
this is 2 long
Posted by:fgjhsgjsrhsAugust 23, 2007 5:37:03 AMRespond ^
Hmmmm... I wonder how long it'll be after they take over to when they declare that "All Jews must register". Thank God that Madison, Hamilton and Jay took the time to write papers explaining how the Constitution is designed to restrain the worst abuses of power in the human soul.
Posted by:Greg AndersonSeptember 3, 2007 10:31:29 AMRespond ^
These people should all be arrested and tried on charges of Treason. Their ultimate goal is to take over the government of the United States of America. I cannot understand why they are allowed any credibility in our society. They are truly evil.
Posted by:MartySeptember 20, 2007 12:45:32 PMRespond ^
I find it interesting that a lot of the recent hype and fear attached to the Islam faith is being re-created here in America. I don't care what you believe, just don't try to force me into it...whether you follow Allah or God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If this describes the god they worship, I want NO part in it. This is not a god I would ever want to give any credence to whatsoever, nor will I. Not only is it my right to worship how I please as a american, but it's my responsibility as a christian to "fight the good fight" against bigoted, hate-mongering fascists like these people. Fi - Jesus did say to love, and I can love the battle that is coming with this group. We need a call to "arms" on the other side of the fence. All the christians in the world who recognize this type of "faith" as faithless need to organize and fight back. We need not resort to their levels of hate and ignorance, but we have to take a stand... or we'll find our country, and our faith, hijacked from under us.
Posted by:a concerned christianSeptember 20, 2007 2:44:14 PMRespond ^
These people are the true enemy of America. They are willing to become martyrs and or fight with the sword to defeat, convert (over my dead body) all non-believers, and to make this a Christian nation. If they ever initiated hostilities toward this country I would be one of the many citizens to take up arms against these people. This subject is not a crack-pot conspiracy theory, this is a real threat to people who like me, enjoy the freedoms that a secular government offers. An example of one of these groups is Christian Exodus - (www.christianexodus.com). This group is actively moving thousands of people to South Carolina so that they can gain the majority of the vote. They can then proceed to run ultra right wing candidates (Like ex-justice Roy Moore) in local and state government elections. Since the majority of the population will be Christian re-constructionists they will vote in there ultra right wing candidates. From that point on they "own" the state of South Carolina, they will then attempt to secede from the united States after passing a litany of draconian laws. Hopefully the courts will step in if that did happen, but who knows, they may have elected/appointed sympathetic judges by that time. Another worry is all of the Christian re-constructionists that joined the services after 9/11 explicitly to gain military training, or maybe for the adventure of a mini crusade of ones' own. Well when they come back to society they can use there new found military training to try and overthrow this government and put its citizens under the control of Christianity. After all they believe this country and its people are secular evil devils, and morally corrupt and they feel obligated to do something about it, lets not forget it is there Christian duty to stop it and try and convert you. If you decline the conversion they will either kill you or deport you. They said it themselves, they will die by the sword if necessary.
Posted by:R.J.A.October 8, 2007 7:58:50 AMRespond ^
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth“ ( Nietzsche ). Would not the developmental course of Mankind follow the same patterned matrix characteristics as that of a progenies relationship to its progenitor and primogenitor? Therefore just like the myth of Santa Claus, as that being, a temporal belief dispelled by the natural course of intellectual development. Then too, couldn’t man’s belief in an overseeing governance of justice, forgiveness and provider of hope and direction, also be a designed myth provided by convention as man’s moral compass and a wellspring of fellowship and goodwill? Was God around for the caveman, or did he conveniently appear as mankind’s intellectual awareness of his own fragile mortality also came into being? Could not the invention of an all powerful myth, be a manifestation of man’s desire for something solid to anchor and hold onto against an unrelenting oscillating tide of universal change, and isn’t this why God appeared differently, but with the same message, simultaneously in differing cultures. Then too, couldn’t the feared “Armageddon” represent an intellectual awakening and the end of a people’s need for religious leaders like CUFI founder John Hagee, who themselves prosper off the growing public fears and the misery of the innocent. Because of a connate sense of belonging, when asked, individuals will always describe their political as well as religious secular affiliations (personas) as pertaining to their broader mindset and not necessarily referencing their individual allegiance to a monastic and/or perfunctory restrictions and responsibilities. Therefore, referring to America’s religious community as being in and of itself, an indication of a growing American predominance, is disingenuous. When the fact is America’s overall religious devotion is in decline and thereby, just like the converse principals (individual versus the “whole”) realities in “holism”, that themselves create a dichotomy of principals (mathematical paradox) and is also, evidence that Darwin’s natural selection also pertains to and encompasses the advancement of a collective knowledge versus the individual’s archaic and antiquated beliefs. Come on people get real, God is in the process and not sitting on high orchestrating and adjudicating every facet of life. Sooner or later your going to have to realize that; God, Santa Claus, The Lone Ranger and Nietzsche’s Superman are all one in the same and represent just a figment (placebo) of our imagination. “I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief” (Kant).
Posted by:ray burchardOctober 22, 2007 5:47:35 PMRespond ^
The far right wing movements like the 700 club, Focus on the Family, the Heratiage Foundation, Recliaming Christ for America, and I can name a lot more far right wing movements that will take up an entire book are really Militas. These Militas want to and have tried to infiltrate the Government. They have infiltrated the Government by having trying to get Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, and the Terri Schaivo case. Infiltrating the Government is a very serious matter like treason or overthrowing the Government. Infiltrating the Government needs to be taken very seriously. These far right movements want to put the United States under theocratic law just like what the Taliban did in Afganistan, or like the governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The far right movements think exactly like the Terrorists. The United States talks about going against Islamic Facist regimes. The far right movements are Facist movements. The Far right movements bomb abortion clinics and say they are doing the work of GOD and Jesus. The MIddle Eastern Terrorists like to bomb buildings and say they are doing it in the name of their GOD. The Far Right Movement is a bigger threat to this country then the Terrorsits are. Pat Robertson has made comments on the 700 Club that they should plant a nuclear weapon at Foggy Bottom in Washington DC and has said they should nuke the State Department. Talking about nuking buildings or places is a very serious matter. The FBI should have arrested and investigated Pat Robertson for saying they should nuke buildings. If I said something like that on TV they would throw my butt in jail and label me a suspected terrorist. What Pat Robertson was saying on his show is not free speech it is threating the Government. These nuclear weapons that Pat Robertson was talking about are the same types of weapons the Untited States fears that terrorists might use on us. If the Far Right Movements put the Untied States under Thoecratic Law under their regime we could end up being a terrorist state. If the far right got their way into changing the regime we could end up threating attacks on countries that don't agree with the US just like what the Middle Eastern Terrorists are doing to us right now. The thing is the US is a nuclear power and if the far right got their way in changing our regime they could nuke a city in a European Country because the Europeans Countries have a system of law and are more liberal then the United States is and the far right doesn't like Liberalism just like how the terrorists don't like Liberalism. These far right movements are a threat to National Security and the Goverment. We need a Presidental Administration that will take these far right movements and what they are up to very serious. We need a Presidental Administration that will put NSA Survalliance and use the Patriot ACT to their advantage against the far right movements. We need a Presidental Adminstration that will stand up to the far right movements. The Far Right Movements are a threat just is serious as Communism was, and Terrorsim is. The Far Right Movements are going to have to be a new War this country is going to have to fight.
Posted by:Jeremy MontoyaOctober 30, 2007 7:38:43 PMRespond ^
What I find enormously interesting is that when you read rightist web-sites, what is posited as hiding behind the interlocking power structures (e.g. Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral, etc.) is a secretive center of Collectivist bent on world-domination largely through economic levers. When you read the leftist oriented websites, what is posited behind the interlocking power structures (e.g. Council for National Policy largely featured), is a secretive center of Religionist (Christians) who are bent upon domination (mostly of the U.S). Now if you look at all of these councils and foundations, what you will find as a common denominator is big money and/or big power--whether we are talking of Rockefellers or Hunts and their many associates (Yankees and Cowboys as some have put it). I myself would like to utilize a working premise for a while to see how much it will explain. It is this: let's assume that behind the left and the right there is essentially one entity and that it is adroitly using the left and right to constantly engage in conflict and that this conflict is mostly a well designed and orchestrated distraction which functions as a decoy so that as we all focus on and engage in our "war of values" (or whatever you want to call it), they are allowed to move their agenda forward largely undetected. What I am looking for is some websites or entities that are willing to hit the "Pause" button on this whole right - left "war" long enough to ask some larger questions about this. If we did this, it would allow the air to clear some--free it from all the highly charged emotive and rhetorical dust--so that we could all more clearly and determine if there is a larger and still more hidden agenda lurking. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. If only we could agree long enough to seriously investigate this thesis (understanding that if a long hard and objective look does not materialize anything substantive, we could go back to our "war"). Does anyone know of any such websites or organizations who are pursuing this kind of Meta-Query?
Posted by:JimboNovember 19, 2007 10:34:08 AMRespond ^
I Think that we should go back in time and use roman law. use it today.ANYONE who claims his PERSONAL opinion is the Right "WAY" should be feed to the lions.
Posted by:martinJanuary 12, 2008 10:16:30 PMRespond ^
I am a Christian, and "very conservative" would be an apt description of my beliefs. But, the people portrayed in this article concern me. Folks like these are the reason I thank God that the United States has a secular form of government--and for the separation of church and state.
Posted by:lei masonJanuary 17, 2008 11:08:05 AMRespond ^
The Religious Basis for Separation of Church and State The Origin of the Separation of Church and State. It was Jesus who Created the Principle of the Separation of Church and State The following article, The Origin of the Principle of the Separation of Church and State, was written to inform Americans that Christians have more than one viewpoint on the issue of Church and State separation. Many individuals who argue for the elimination or modification of the Constitutional principle of the Separation of Church and State believe they are upholding basic Christian doctrines and principles. Seemingly, they argue on the behalf of all Christians. However, many Christians throughout history have advocated the strict and complete separation of Church and State and this predates the U. S. constitution by nearly two thousand years. The article below gives a brief history of the principle from the point of view or perspective of Christians who are firm believers in the strict separation of Church and State, from the beginning of Christianity to the present. Moreover, in the debate over the constitutionality of certain laws on the federal level, many conservatives often refer to the necessity to adhere to a policy of Strict Constructionism, or in other words, a strict interpretation of the constitution guided by the concept of “original intent.” That is, what did the founders intend when writing that particular section of the constitution or amendment. Many strict constructionists believe that the laws and policies of the country should not stray from the exact written words of the document. In order to interpret vague passages, they consult the constitutional debates and supporting documents. The Bible is the constitution of Christianity, and conservative Christians who oppose the principle of the separation of church and state are looking at the wrong document when they consult the U.S. Constitution for guidance, or debate about the original intentions of the Founders Fathers. I submit that Christians should first attempt to discern the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, by consulting the New Testament, the known history of the period and any other early writings that can be traced to the first two hundred years or so of the new religion. If the founders of Christianity adhered to the principle of the separation of church and state, then the original intentions of the founders of the United States are less relevant to Christians. Since, in actuality the two sets of founders are in accord, this should put the issue to rest, at least as far as Christians are concerned. Anyone who would like to read the entire article email jmcmeans@negia.net
Posted by:Jim McMeansJanuary 24, 2008 6:09:48 PMRespond ^
GOD you are special to me.YOU are so PRETTY.THANK you for saving our world
Posted by:gianlucaJanuary 26, 2008 4:16:21 AMRespond ^
As the bumper sticker says, "So many Christians, so few lions."

Posted by:TimMarch 12, 2008 11:42:42 PMRespond ^
All governments are theocracies? And we live in a secular humanist theocracy?

This fundamentalist a------ should be shot.
Posted by:Sam SharpApril 2, 2008 8:50:24 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2005 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS