Religious law in America? Could be.

[Thats my opinion]

One of the fears occasionally surfacing around here is that radical Islamists will take over some political jurisdiction in the United States, putting its citizens under Sharia law. Women will lose all their hard fought-for rights, be required to dress modestly including headscarves, and find it necessary to walk behind their husbands. But that, we are told, is the mildest part of Sharia law. Those who violate certain religious taboos would be subject to public stoning. There are obvious ominous results were this to happen. 1-The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be gutted. 2-The separation of Church and State would be obliterated, and we would be in a similar fix as was Salem during the witch trials, Blacks during slavery and Spanish heretics during the Inquisition.

There is not the remotest chance that this scenario could be produced anywhere in the United States. No one except the most paranoid anti-Muslims even suggests the possibility of such a development. The real threat is not from advocates of Sharia law, but from a significant contingent of Americans who advocate the adoption of Biblical law.

“Reconstructionism” has been around since the 1960s when a sect led by J. Rushdoony openly advocated replacing American law with Biblical law, drawing mainly from the Old Testament which includes such things as the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy. While it has been denounced by leading conservative Christians, an adaptation of the notion has recently resurfaced in a somewhat less threatening form. Two current candidates for the Presidency seem to live on Reconstructionism’s borders.

Michelle Bachmann lifted from Rushdoony’s followers the notion that as a matter of law the government should be prohibited from collecting taxes in excess of 10%. In a book titled “Call to Duty,” which she recommends, the Civil War was depicted as a battle between the devout Christian South and the godless North, while it lauds slavery as a benevolent institution. Her academic hero is John Eldsmoe of Oral Roberts University, a devout Reconstructionist. She and overt Reconstructionists in the Tea Party hold that God has set the proper role of government, which does not include such things as public education or assistance to the poor. Instead God desires a Christian government in which an evangelical worldview is enforced. While she might never use the Reconstructionist label, her roots lie deep in that soil.

Rick Perry, while not as blatent in his support of Reconstructionist goals, stands clearly on the border of that movement. His unsuccessful April 22-24 “Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas” seems to assert that the State would be blessed by God if Jesus’ loving people prayed hard enough. Jesus has always been part of his anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-gun, pro-life agenda. His supporters include the American Family Association, which regularly denigrates gays and lesbians and other minority groups, and holds that the First Amendment applies only to Christians, and therefore Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques. Perry has declared “as a nation we must call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles.” His politically sponsored August 6 prayer rally leaned almost all the way toward Reconstructionism.

A few weeks back I published a piece concerning breaches in the wall of separation between Church and State. A score of responses suggested I had ducked the chance to be specific and to name names. So here they are. The real problem is not what these people believe. They have every right, and one would hope that all candidates had underneath their political proclivities some sort of ethical rootage. But when they openly declare clearly defined Christian doctrine as the basis for their political agendas, that wall has not only been breached, it has been dismantled. Bachman and Perry have a perfect right to hold what they believe to be faithful political perspectives, but to insist that their goal is to promote a narrow biblical view as the basis for national law, puts them on shaky unsupportable ground.

[backscatter712]

1. Damned right we should be concerned about the Dominionists imposing Christian Sharia! n/t

[northoftheborder]

2. good name for what it is: "Christian Sharia Law". be watchful and wary about this.

[dmallind]

3. For those saying "no chance" ....Biblical law in the US has more support than Bush had

Remember how much fun we had with the 28% approval floor - the diehards who wanted Bush even when all his flaws were known?

Well more than that want the Bible to be law in the US. 32%. Not a fringe. Not a far fundy handful. Not limited to Bachmann and her cronies. 32%. Now sure that's not 50%, but 32% who care can swing elections easilt, and a lot of the candidates they will swing them to are adept at sending out dogwhistles to the 32% letting them they know they agree, but without being stupid enough to wake up the apathetic 68% by saying "I think we should stone adulterers" in the campaign.

Theocracy won't start with that. It will (will??) start with Blue laws and an erosion of separation safeguards, then keep going in the guise of decency and morality until it's entrenched enough to pick up the rocks. Like the religious extremists in other nations such as the Taliban who waited out the Soviets and are waiting out NATO before they take over again, our home-grown Talibornagain are cool with the long-term game. The sane need to be too.

http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Many-Americans-Uneasy-with-Mix-of-Religion-and-Politics.aspx

[rug]

4. I won't say no chance but I will say fat chance.

[Thats my opinion]

5. Your warnings--right on target n/t

[trotsky]

6. You have a contradiction on your hands.

You say: "But when they openly declare clearly defined Christian doctrine as the basis for their political agendas, that wall has not only been breached, it has been dismantled."

But you also quite enthusiastically posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=300247&mesg_id=300247

So it's not OK for the right wing to use their religion as the basis of their political agenda, but it's OK for progressives?

Why is that?

[Thats my opinion]

7. You raise a decent question.

I know that many here want simple answers to complex questions because they often provide the opportunity for a "gotcha" response. Either you are asking for a rational explanation or you are trying to find a way to insist that religion should have no public exposure--or maybe is a superstition that shouldn't rationally exist at all. The give away is in the accusation you make in your first line. But the question is valid and I will answer it. I have been preparing a column (part of my regular political work) which will be in print on Sept 22, and I will file it also on r/t. So patience. I take the question seriously.

[laconicsax]

10. You've been asked before

Just take some time and answer the damn question here. Your columns tend to skirt the questions you've been asked without ever answering them.

[darkstar3]

14. You assume

he wants to answer the question.

[laconicsax]

15. No, I just want to avoid making that accusation.

You catch more flies with honey, so to speak.

[darkstar3]

16. My point is that every time someone asks a difficult question,

it is referred to as a "gotcha" or something similar and then placed into the category of "questions I won't waste my time answering."

It's soapbox vs. discussion forum, and it therefore doesn't matter how nicely you ask.

[laconicsax]

17. That said...

It doesn't hurt to try.

[Thats my opinion]

18. Really?

Maybe I just don't give you the answers you want so they can be easily attacked. I have given up playing that game with one of your friends who is not off my list, so I don't even see his numerous salvos. As promised, I'll give you my answer Sept. 22.

[darkstar3]

20. Did you just admit that you're uninterested in discussion?

[skepticscott]

23. When has he ever been interested in discussion?

He wants an echo chamber for his badly supported notions, and when they've been too thoroughly demolished, he just cuts and runs. He's used this "I'll answer someday" tactic to deflect attention from a claim he can't defend or an obvious contradiction between two posts so many times, you'd think he'd be embarrassed to still try it.

[trotsky]

21. If your answers are so easily attacked,

maybe they aren't very good answers.

[laconicsax]

22. Yes, really.

There are several questions you've been asked numerous times and you've yet to answer them. What you propose is not a method of discussion. This is a discussion board and it would be greatly appreciated if you would participate in discussion.

[cleanhippie]

25. IOW, "wait two weeks and maybe I will get back to you." WTF?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

11. And I'll keep asking until you answer.

Because to this point, all you've been able to show is that you have a double standard.

[skepticscott]

59. Looking forward

to your detailed and substantive reply this week.

[NMMNG]

9. Because Progressives are doing it for good reasons

Of course the RRRW makes the same claim so.....

[trotsky]

12. Bingo.

"It's only OK when we do it!"

[darkstar3]

13. The only moral X is my X.

You see it in every group with internal schisms.

[NMMNG]

8. The ones screaming loudest about the alleged dangers of Sharia law

in America are the ones who most want to impose "Biblical law" on us. Worse yet, they seem to think there's nothing wrong or hypocritical in their stance.

[cleanhippie]

24. Oh look, ANOTHER diatribe where you generate many questions you refuse to answer. -1

:puke:


You say you want discussion, yet leave questions unanswered. It would seem you prefer one-way communication.


:puke:


This IS a DISCUSSION board, you know.

[Thats my opinion]

27. Then ,why don't you all discuss

what i have posted, instead of looking for peripheral things to attack. Do you agree or not agree with what I posted?

[laconicsax]

29. You all? Why do you exclude yourself?

If you don't intend to discuss what you post, then why are you posting on a discussion board.

[Thats my opinion]

34. what I post is not responded to.

only "gotcha" other stuff.

[laconicsax]

36. Absolutely false.

Don't try and pull a Palin by labeling valid questions you didn't expect "gotcha." You've been asked several legitimate questions about what you've posted and inevitably, you avoid giving direct answers and fall back on 'an answer is forthcoming' only to never reply.

This is not how "thoughtful discussion" works.

[cleanhippie]

31. So you want me to list the prpblems I have with your post, then have you NOT respond to them?

I mean, seriously, with every one of your posts, you get asked critical questions, yet you either claim that they are "attacks" or you say you will answer in some yet-to-be-named response in your diary or blog.

Why can't you just discuss the topic you posted on right here, right now?


Above, you have been asked several questions and been given several discrepancies to discuss, yet you chose to do so in a SEPTEMBER 22nd blog post.

Right now is the time to discuss.

[rrneck]

26. We wouldnt be having this discussion

if millions of Christians didn't support thjose idiots.

[Thats my opinion]

28. it is probably not millions

but it is far too many. I'm doing something about it. Why not join the fight instead of simply looking for something not even in what I wrote to attack?

[dmallind]

30. It's tens of millions. Close to hundreds. 32% want Biblical law remember?

If they train up their kids well enough that nine-figure mark is far from out of bounds. In every survey no matter how worded, theocratic or Dominionist positions get 25-40%.

[Thats my opinion]

33. Please forward that survey material to me. I haven't seen it.n/t

[dmallind]

37. linked in my first post on this thread. nt

[dmallind]

38. Oh and I am sure that the vast majority do not understand what Biblical law.IS

You of course do. I have a pretty good grasp too. I can pretty much guarantee 90% of that 32% don't know that Biblical law entails killing disobedient children and OKs rape and slavery. But they are conditioned enough to see Christian=Good, Bible=Christian, ergo Bible Law=Good Christian behavior. And they vote. On that basis. By the millions. When the stonings do start and ther frothing 10% of that 32% who are in charge tell the 90% that Biblical law DOES include such horrors, how easily can they overcome that conditioning to object? I'll be dead (well all atheists will be too). You might even be too if you're loud enough at saying that Christianity only means love and tolerance. How will the masses fight back once they realize the Taliban ain't just for Muslims any more? Afghans have a better history of fighting governments than we do, and they can't stand against their religious loonies (I have no doubts at all a majority of Afghans would prefer to do so). How will we?

[NMMNG]

44. I've long thought

that those who opine that "Biblical Law" should be the law of the could could be put on an island where they're required to live under it--fully. The few that managed to live through the experience (considering how many "sins" in the Bible merit death) would be able to tell everyone else how abominable an idea it really is. It might finally put that insane idea to rest.

[trotsky]

32. No, probably not millions. It's TENS of millions.

Denying this is what's keeping you from getting the discussion you claim to desire. Millions, yes MILLIONS of Christians think their faith tells them that abortion is wrong, gays are evil, evolution is false, and all the rest. But you only want to talk about liberal Christians whose faith inspires them to support the opposite positions on those issues - but the fact of the matter is, because you all base it on religious faith, there is absolutely no way to position yourself as the "correct" stance. You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge this fact, even going so far as to claim those who are exposing it are posing "gotcha" questions. But it is an inescapable consequence of the position you take.

[rrneck]

35. You studiously avoid admitting

that Christianity, as practiced today, is little more than a corporate media enterprise. The wing nut christian right represents tens of millions of people. Any presidential candidate that flirts with the language of that voting block of people is reasonably sure that a)there are enough of them to help them at the polls and b)there are enough others sympathetic to them not jump ship and vote for somebody else.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/tea-party-support-correlates-to-religious-affiliation/

Tea Party support correlates to religious affiliation, survey finds

The Tea Party hardly claims to be a religious movement - it mostly advocates for smaller government and lower taxes - but feelings abTea Party supporters comprised 41% of the electorate in November, previous Pew polling found, with the overwhelming majority backing Republican candidates, contributing to the GOP's House takeover.out the movement correlate to affiliation with certain religious groups, according to new survey data from the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

...

Tea Party supporters are "much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on ... social issues" like abortion and same-sex marriage, according to the Pew analysis

...

Tea Party supporters comprised 41% of the electorate in November, previous Pew polling found, with the overwhelming majority backing Republican candidates, contributing to the GOP's House takeover.

Christians that vote for Republicans are much more likely to vote that way because they consider themselves Christians. The way Christians have been running their religion is the reason they do that.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html

Significantly, Christians, including Evangelicals, do not vote as a bloc, even within specific denominations. In the year 2000, when 45 percent of the population told the Gallup poll they were Evangelical or Born-Again, 84 percent of White Evangelical Protestants who voted cast ballots for Bush and 16 percent for Gore. One study found that 40 percent of the total vote for Bush in 2000 came from Christian Evangelicals, making it the largest single voting bloc in the Republican Party.

...

While on average older Evangelicals tend to lag slightly behind the average U.S. resident in education and income, there is a "continuing trend toward the GOP, as younger, better-educated, and wealthier Evangelicals replace an older, less upscale Democratic political generation."<10> Evangelicals who are politically or socially active, especially conservatives, seem to be increasingly upwardly mobile, suburban, highly-educated, and with above-average incomes, contrary to many popular stereotypes.<11> One group of scholars found that between 1978 and 1988, "Christian Right activism occurred predominantly in rapidly growing—and relatively prosperous—suburban areas of the South, Southwest, and Midwest."<12> Conservative Evangelicals also do a better job at rallying their own forces to vote. In 2000, 79 percent of Evangelicals who voted for Bush had been contacted at least once by a politicized religious group or individual, as compared to 36 percent of Gore voters.

...

Protestant churches with socially conservative agendas, that also require a high level of participatory commitment, are the fastest growing sector of religion in the United States. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) increased its membership between 1990 and 2000 by 19.3 percent to a total of over 4.2 million. Following in order of growth are the Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches, both with 18.6 percent growth rates; the Pentecostal Assemblies of God with 18.5 percent; and the Roman Catholic Church with 16.2 percent. At the same time, traditionally more liberal denominations—such as the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ—are losing membership. The Catholic Church is still the nation’s largest single religious belief system, with over 62 million adherents in the year 2000 (some 22 percent of the population), but if all Protestant religious groups are combined, they number 66 million adherents (some 23 percent of the population)

You need to wake up. Christianity is going the wrong way and all you are doing is struggling for a growing share of a shrinking market. I don't care how much you avoid recognizing the problems of religion in the United States you can't hide it. How anyone could do anything under the imprimatur of Christianity and call it helping progressiveism in this country is beyond me.

Why don't you, for once, explain how Christianity is going to amend itself so that it can gain enough credibility to be a positive force in the world?

[Thats my opinion]

39. Forgetting the attack in your first sentence,

much of the rest of your post is on target. I, and many others, are busy doing something about it. That is what my original post is all about. My question, What are you doing other than castigating all religion? So go ahead and dump scorn on the firefighters who are at the face of the blaze trying to control it.

[trotsky]

40. Here's what you're missing, time and again:

You have been utterly ineffective in combating the right-wing use of religion because the only "weapon" you want to use is left-wing religion. Or, to use your analogy, you're pouring gasoline to try and put out the fire. Neutering the political power of ALL religion is key. And forcing people to justify their policy goals with secular reasoning, not by appealing to the Holy Spirit or to a book of mythology written in primitive times.

[skepticscott]

41. Attack? Please, what "attack"?

It was pointed out that you failed to acknowledge something important in your posts, something that would tell against the points you're trying to make. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a discussion whose object is supposed to be getting at the truth, and is nothing at all of a personal "attack". You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing an attack on your claims and arguments from an attack on you personally (either that, or labeling every point you can't answer as a personal "attack" is the only debating tactic you have left).

And others of us ARE doing something about it, without the need to substitute one flavor of religious delusion for another, or to engage in self-promotion. As far as you being at the "face of the blaze", you're not even close. Look to someone like Barry Lynn for that.

[Thats my opinion]

45. you are right about

Barry Lynn. We have had him to our community and I have had dinner with him. We are working together. We are having Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause, in our community on Sept 30. He will speak by my invitation at our community in the morning, and in the evening, after we have dinner together, he will be on a panel sponsored by a Think Tank (The Institute for Progressive American Democracy) at a Graduate University. I am on the executive board of that Think Tank and we are hard at work across a number of lines actually mobilizing and working with many other--religious and non-religious. Tell us all about the things you are doing about these things instead of spending half of your time searching the Internet for religious horror stories. What groups and others, like Barry Lynn, can you list and what are you all doing? (Both Barry and Bod are theologically trained and committed)

[rrneck]

46. More

question avoidance and self promotion. That is the attitude that defeats your cause. You are only here to swell the ranks.

There are questions pending.

[skepticscott]

47. Sheesh, do you EVER answer a direct question?

I asked you to justify your characterization of a response to one of your posts as an "attack". And what do we get? More self-promotion and name dropping. Not even a hint of an honest, on-point answer.

[trotsky]

49. You return to this accusation a lot:

Trying to dismiss others by claiming they are just "searching the Internet for religious horror stories." Aren't you just doing the same thing in reverse? Searching only for religious feel-good stories, ignoring everything else? If you're going to attack someone for a particular behavior, you should probably try to refrain from engaging in that exact same behavior. Just a suggestion.

[skepticscott]

54. Apparently not

[rrneck]

42. Like I said.

You are struggling for a growing share of a shrinking market.

Please explain how the Christian faith can reverse its accelerating trend toward theocratic fascism.

The only thing I have seen you do here is avoid discussing most of the members of your faith. How can any religion avoid the fate suffered by Christianity in its effort to stay relevant in the modern world? Unless you plan to save religion single handedly I don't much give a shit what you personally are doing so spare me the resume.

I am not aware of a successful culture that did not practice at least one religion. As far as I am concerned religion is indispensable if not unavoidable. But I have yet to meet a Christian who can even entertain the notion that their religion is doing it wrong. Instead all I get is apologetics that sounds a lot like brand loyalty.

You are not being attacked. You are being asked direct questions about your religion. Since you claim to be a theologian I would think you would at least have given some thought to the role of religion in modern society. Stop being defensive and give us something to talk about besides you.

[rrneck]

53. Mafe good your escape I see.

Have you noticed how those who share your approach at "team building" are staying away in droves?

If you would engage in straightforward discussion instead of spin and self promotion you would enjoy more success.

[Thats my opinion]

55. Staying away in droves?

Just review the changes that are taking place in r/t in the last half year. People like me have been afraid to face the fury of the old r/t. A few are no longer afraid. We are not a tiny minority--except on r/t. Every major protestant seminary, the councils of churches, and thousands of congregations are not fundamentalists and share with you a responsible social ethic. But you seem to refuse to allow us to exist here without putting down anything we say. But we will continue to say it.

[rrneck]

56. The same posters are here

that were here before you showed up.

You have two ways to go here. You can produce some sort of rational argument for the role of religion in modern society in whatever form you think it should take, or you can inspire others to your faith. So far you have done neither.

The atheists have seen better than you come and go on the rational side, and liberals are rarely inspired by spin from corporate flacks.

There are questions pending upthread. Are you ready for a straightforward discussion or will you resume your rush to umbrage?

[skepticscott]

57. Being "afraid" is not the issue

nor was it ever, except in your rather unimaginative attempt to smear the mean ol' atheists and anti-theists. Having their unfounded claims and beliefs challenged in ways they didn't expect, had never had to deal with before, and that they didn't think they should have to answer (and couldn't) was much more relevant.

And continue to say whatever you want. But your (now rather tiresome) attempts to paint every criticism and challenge that you can't answer as an "attack" or a put down won't give you a free pass when what you say is foolish and unsupportable. Not now, not ever.

[trotsky]

58. This is a really new experience for you, isn't it?

Being requested to defend your religious statements with reason, and justifying the intermingling of politics and religion - so long as it's YOUR religion - is all rather uncomfortable, isn't it?

[rrneck]

43. By the way

why would I "join the fight" to try to turn around an organization that has clearly done more harm than good and appears to be rapidly increasing its negative role in our culture.

Proselytizing by guilt won't work when Christianity has as much as it does to feel guilty about.

[skepticscott]

48. In your first paragraph, you state

"One of the fears occasionally surfacing around here is that radical Islamists will take over some political jurisdiction in the United States, putting its citizens under Sharia law."

And in the second paragraph, you say "No one except the most paranoid anti-Muslims even suggests the possibility of such a development."

So which is it? No doubt you'll try to characterize this as an "attack" and "gotcha", but when your whole post is based on a premise that you yourself deny a few lines later, why should anyone take any of it seriously?

[Adsos Letter]

50. "The real threat is not from advocates of Sharia law,...

...but from a significant contingent of Americans who advocate the adoption of Biblical law."

I agree with you on this point and I think it is the fear most commonly expressed around these parts, not any real fear of the likelihood of Sharia law.

Bachman and Perry have a perfect right to hold what they believe to be faithful political perspectives, but to insist that their goal is to promote a narrow biblical view as the basis for national law, puts them on shaky unsupportable ground.

Not simply shaky and unsupportable but blatantly unconstitutional. I will not pretend to speak for any of the more eloquent voices around here; but for myself, any law or program established on the grounds of "We should do this because it's the way (insert any particular god or faith here) wants us to do it" are both unconstitutional and dangerous. I might well personally agree that progressive social programs are good because I think they comport with my understanding of how Christ wants us to treat each other, but for Government to assert that "we are going to pursue this
(insert law or policy here) because Christ would want us to" is another matter. Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but I don't see it that way.

How do you see it? I'm not sure what you mean when you say "their goal is to promote a narrow biblical view." Do you maintain that promoting a broad biblical view is acceptable?

I like the way Helen Thomas expressed it to George Bush in his first press conference as president. The issue was the Office of Faith Based Initiatives established under his administration:

Thomas: Well, you are a secular official.

Bush: I agree, I am a secular official.

Thomas: And not a missionary.

http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2001/04/helen-thomas-tel.html

Please forgive my lack of eloquence, form, and punctuation; it was the bane of my existence in Grad School. :D

EDIT: tried to fix something that turned out not to need fixin'.
RE-EDIT: well...I don't seem to be able to get that second parenthetical expression to assume its proper place...:dunce:

[trotsky]

51. +1

I couldn't agree more. And there is nothing wrong with your eloquence, form, or punctuation that I could tell!

[Adsos Letter]

52. Thanks!

I must have been experiencing a moment of clarity. They seem to be rarer these days. :D

[Taverner]

60. As long as drugs are treated as crimes, we have religious law