Dominionism

Jeff Mullin is a "Senior Writer" for the Enid, Oklahoma News & Eagle newspaper. A few years ago he wrote an article "poking fun" at atheists for having the unmitigated gall to suggest that traditional god-belief was exactly the same as belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her unseen curly mane.) He subsequently received a letter from an atheist who asked him what gave him the right to ridicule atheists for their lack of belief?

Nothing, apparently. He just likes to ridicule atheists. So, nice Christian guy that he is, he decided to do it again. This time in a column dripping with insincere pity for the poor, deluded atheists.

How very thoughtful of him.

More below the fold...

Illinois state Rep. Monique Davis has apologized to Rob Sherman, who has graciously accepted her apology, for attempting to deny him his civil rights in a public hearing that he was invited to testify before last week.

Apparently it's OK to be a bigoted, unconstitutional, theocratic asshole if you're having a bad day.

(This post is part of the Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm.)

OK, now that I have your attention . . .

. . . let's talk about sex. Or, more accurately, how religious nuts want to control your sex life, your access to information about sex, and your sexual health - all through the government.

Theocracy, anyone?

Specifically, I want to talk about how some in the health-related professions think that they should have the "right" to deny you services or information if something about your sex life disagrees with their religious beliefs.

First off, here's a nice bit from Illinois:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A group of pharmacists asked the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw out a rule that forces them to dispense emergency contraception despite moral objections, claiming it amounts to illegal coercion.

Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the AU have filed a lawsuit against the town of Greece, NY for it's unconstitutional practice of offering explicitly sectarian Christian prayers as an official part of their town meetings.

[link] Khan said that of 44 Greece meeting prayers reviewed by her group, only one was offered by a non-Christian. And, she said, the review showed that the vast majority of prayers delivered before meetings since 2004 were explicitly sectarian.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that governmental bodies may open their sessions with prayer, but only if the prayer is nonsectarian and does not reference a particular deity or the language and symbols specific to one religion.

The Americans United lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Greece residents Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, seeks to have the court declare that Greece's current practice violates the Constitution and issue an injunction prohibiting sectarian prayer before the board meetings.

The citizen's reactions are what concern me the most:

[link] Please understand that the real issue is getting publicity for people and their anti-Christian agenda. I attend Faith Temple Church in Brighton and this is no different from when they didn't want the new expanded Christian based church expanding in THEIR town. I appreciate that the Jewish and atheiest can come together for something! The funny thing is they're both nonbelievers in Christ. I get that, but when people around you are believers and they are in power please respect YOUR place. When I come to Brighton I understand MY place as a Christian male. You need to realize in Greece we don't accept atheism or Judaism as the guiding faith in our town. We have predominately Christian places of worship throughout the town. Respect it or leave it. I am sick of this crap, we aren't Holland or Londonistan or any other place where Christians are made to feel dirty for their religion, this is America! We were founded by a country of white protestant Christian males, and as such are guided by that. I didn't complain all the time I had to spend in SS class learning about the holocaust ad nauseam. I respect what happened and hope it never happens again, BUT I don't call the ACLU and complain my children have to learn it and I am offended or whatever. Find these women and find out what they're real problem is and lets solve it, but it isn't prayer.

In other words, "Sit down, shut up, and get to the back of the bus while your betters run this town, you filthy, second-class, non-Christian scum." And what's the deal with the scary "find these women and find out what their real problem is" threatening comment? Find them and what? Beat them until they acknowledge that Christians are more human then they are? Find them and terrorize their families? What a despicable thing to say.

This is a depressingly familiar refrain from bigoted Christians in our country who have no clue what the Constitution actually says, and who would seem to be arguing for a Christian theocracy in a "might makes right" or "majority rules" sense.

What they don't understand is the fact that our First Amendment concept of the separation of church and state protects them too. Tyranny of the majority should be a real and valid concern for all Americans, not just the minorities - because one day you too could become a minority.

Kudos to the AU for fighting this very important fight to save our civil liberties from the absolute morons who want to strip them away.

I've heard and seen much mockery focused on the Tom Cruise Scientology video over the past couple of days. (I apologize if that link no longer works, but the video has been on and off the net and that's the best link I can find at the time of this article.) The truth is, while I believe that atheists (especially agnostic atheists), in general, have a leg to stand on in this case, I don't think the rest of the godders, or innumerable other groups, do. Let's look at a few things that Cruise says.

Tom Cruise: ...I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist, and it’s something that you have to earn because a Scientologist does... has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them.

"But that’s what drives me... I know that we have an opportunity to really help... effectively change people’s lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.

Replace the words “Scientologist” with the words Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Nazi, Feminist, Vegan, vegetarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, geek, Sikh, or even self help guru and you'll see what I mean. This statement, minus the maniacal laughter, could have come from any of the groups I listed and a whole lot more. Let's move on to the next set; shall we?
more below the fold

Romney's exclusion of secular and atheist Americans from his rose-colored vision of a happily religious "Stepford wives" America was despicable, to say the least. Now the Huckabee camp in the person of Huckabee aide Ed Rollins gets in on a little atheist-bashing action by using the term as an epithet against Romney aide Ron Kaufman on the Chris Matthews show Hardball. And they all have a laugh at how ridiculous it was to call Kaufman an atheist.

Hah hah hah! Chuckle chuckle, elbow in the ribs. Isn't it so silly to say that a top aide to one of the Presidential campaign's front-runner candidates is a dirty, stinking, filthy godless atheist? Why, what could be more far-fetched? Everyone knows that atheists can't be in powerful political positions!

Silly Ed Rollins - what a merry jokester you are!

Oh wait - I mean bigoted asshole. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Alicia Colon, writing an op-ed piece for the New York Daily Sun, is upset that in the city of New York, Christian nativity scenes are not given parity with other religious displays on public property.

I actually agree with her on this point. If this is indeed the case, then it is a wrongheaded and illegal move by the school board. The Constitution protects all faiths - even Christians - and non-faith. To say otherwise is simple ignorance.

[Alicia Colon] The tyranny of a small but vocal minority has completely warped this time of year into a season of litigation and constitutional confusion. Our own Department of Education, which bans Christian religious symbols in schools, needs to educate itself on exactly what the Constitution says about God and country.

Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about God. It does say a lot about country though.

A City Council member, Tony Avella, has introduced a resolution granting parity to Christians so that crèches will be permitted alongside menorahs and the star and crescent in city schools. At present, the education department will not allow it, though there is no constitutional bar to this nativity display. At a press conference at City Hall this week, Mr. Avella and other community activists demanded equal justice, but the mere fact that this is an issue demonstrates how little is understood about the First Amendment, which does allow the "free exercise of religion."

First of all, there is no city resolution anywhere in America that can "grant" anyone a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution. If Councilman Avella thinks that he has this kind of power, then he needs to re-think his place in the world. I mean, thanks a bunch for trying to help, Councilman, but there is no reason to act like a fool doing it.

I also have an issue with the way Miss Colon attempts to support her contention about the city excluding Christians. She tries to make the case that because the founders said "God" a lot, and because they wrote about God a lot, then Christians should be free to place their own religious displays alongside other religious displays on public property.

She also uses Newt Gingrich's achingly dominionist film "Rediscovering God in America" as an argument for her position.

The thing is that she doesn't need all that stuff. The Constitution, and the First Amendment already give Christians "parity" to use the public square.

The U.S. Constitution is the only legal founding document we have. Other documents have undeniable historical value, but they do not carry the force of law. There is no dispute - the Constitution is the basic foundation of the laws of our land. Everything that is America flows from the ideas and concepts embodied within it.

So, how many times do you think "God" mentioned in the Constitution? How about "Jesus" or "Christ"? What about "Creator", "Supreme Being", "Thor", "Big Magic Ju-Ju Guy", or "Santa Claus"?

If you said "zero", you are exactly right. The Constitution is a wholly secular document by design. Our Founding Fathers were wise men to craft it as such.

The First Amendment guarantees us our freedom of expression, religion, and press. Inherent in that freedom is the freedom to not believe. That is what us atheists call "freedom from religion", and apparently what Miss Colon is objecting to in the headline of her column.

The very best course our government can take in this is strict neutrality. This is what the First Amendment means. That way, individuals may practice or not practice, believe or not believe, with our government staying strictly neutral - neither hindering nor helping. This concept has been borne out by more than 200 years of wildly successful religions and religious growth in our country, and lately in the rise of atheist, agnostic, and other secular people's voices, organizations, blogs, writings, and political awareness. We have the freedom to be religious - whatever we want to be - or not religious. There is no other country like this on the planet, with this type of unbridled religious freedom. And it is due to the secular, neutral stance that our government (should) take - the secular, neutral stance spelled out in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The obvious example - especially at this time of the year - of what this means in practical terms is that you cannot allow a Christian Nativity scene on public property without also allowing everyone else the same privilege.

The problem here is that in most cases like this, the Christian majority wants to be "more equal" than the rest of us. They have enjoyed special preference by virtue of being the majority for so long, that they now consider it their right.

In some isolated cases like the one above in New York, the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. This is also wrong.

Alicia, you don't need a lot of god-talk to make your point. Our secular Constitution does it for you just fine.

Florida State Board Of Education member Donna Callaway gets it so wrong that it's painful to read.

[link] Donna Callaway, a former middle school principal from Tallahassee, told the Florida Baptist Witness that evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origins of life."

She also said she hoped Christians would pray over the issue. "As a SBOE member, I want those prayers," Callaway said. "I want God to be part of this."

Evolution is not a "theory of origins of life", number one, and number two, the Christian God cannot, by law, "be a part of" the Florida State Board Of Education - unless you rescind the United States Constitution, or secede from the union.

But you've all heard this before, time and time again. It's been said, over and over, a thousand times or more. The facts are always the same; ignorant Christian creationist who does not understand what evolution is, or what science is gets elected to the school board. Then they convince other ignorant Christian creationists on the school board to "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" by reading the religious tracts put out by the Discovery Institute, WoTM, or Dr. Dino. Overworked civil-rights defenders like the ACLU and FFRF take the school board to court and win. Many indignant news stories and op-ed columns are written about the evil atheist plot to persecute innocent Christians by teaching science instead of Christian mythology in - ahem - science classes. Overwrought email chain letters get forwarded to everyone and their grandmother shouting about the nasty atheists and their evil plan to barbecue all the Christian children in the public school system for the crime of being Christian.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Things like this make me tired. It feels like we're bailing out a leaky boat with plastic beer cups. I mean, were doing something, going through the motions, making a lot of noise and fuss, but the reality of the situation is that the boat is filling up too fast. I fear that we are sinking, and that there is not a lot we can do to prevent it.

Still, we'll keep on bailing because what else can we do?

Us poor, poor atheists. So lost, with no redeeming social value. Enemies to all that is good and true and right.

At least, that's what Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology in George W. Truett Theological Seminary at baylor University would like you to think.

Oh, he loves us individual, lost little atheists, but considers atheism to be "the enemy"

Well, golly, gee-whiz, Perfesser. You've got that whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing going on, don't you? That maker you feel all special and superior to us poor little atheists?

[Dr. Roger Olson] I feel sorry for atheists. They are so much in the minority in American society and they are bound to feel some marginalization if not persecution.

Christians should be the last people to persecute anyone -- including atheists. But that doesn't mean Christians have to accommodate atheism as they tolerate and love atheists.

We have to recognize atheists' full freedom to believe God does not exist, but we don't have to embrace atheism as a social good. In fact, I would argue that atheism has no redeeming social value.

Ah, the bigotry disguised as compassionate tough love. He's got that down to an art form. He's going to love us all into becoming good little Christian robots - whether we like it or not. Because he knows what's best for us, apparently, and we're just all deluded by Satan. You see, atheists don't really exist, according to Doc Olson.

[Dr. Roger Olson] But most atheists demonstrate their basic trust in the meaningfulness of reality by being outraged at evil and injustice, thereby demonstrating that atheism cannot be lived out consistently.

What makes something evil or unjust if nothing like God exists -- if nature is all there is? Only subjective choice either by an individual or a society. But that can change and it often does. Without God, the social prophet has no way out of relativism.

Baylor and universities like it exist to promote objective values and meaningful existence.

For them atheism is not benign, but the enemy -- even if atheists themselves are not.

Finally, let me repeat that I have nothing against atheists as persons and neither does Baylor University.

But in my opinion, they are people of character and virtue in spite of their philosophy of life -- not because of it.

People like this make me nervous. They posses an absolute fanatical certainty in this un-evidenced magical man in the sky, then they combine it with the pursuit of a selfish bit of societal acclaim for their faux-altruistic compassion towards the nasty, mislead atheists. This could lead eventually to rounding us up and herding us all into compassionate, loving "re-education centers" - for our own good, of course. Because we obviously can't be trusted to think for ourselves, according to people like Dr. Olson.

Semantic games aside, Dr. Olson, atheists and atheism aren't the enemy. Asserting that they are is adding to the problem, not helping it.

We don't want your pity, we don't want your twisted brand of selfish compassion, and we don't want your "some of my best friends are atheists" bullshit.

Tell you what - you start treating me like a fellow human, and I'll do the same. Sound fair to you?

Richard Carnes writes a bi-weekly column for the Vail Daily newspaper. This week he wrote a really good piece called "Atheist is not a four-letter word". Read it and you'll find the same points that we make here at UTI all the time.

[Richard Carnes] Atheist is not a four-letter word. Neither is it a euphemism for devil worshiper, totalitarian dictator, child molester or moral-free heathen who reads “Nietzsche for Dummies” for philosophical reference.

An atheist is simply a non-theist, meaning one who does not believe in the existence of gods.

I liked the article, but I had to respond to one of the Christian commenters on the story.

Not only does commenter "frelor" seem to completely mis-understand Richard Carnes' very clear prose, but he also has some pretty wacky ideas about atheism, how to raise good Christian robotschildren, and a masterful plan to out-breed the dreaded Muslim menace.

More below the fold...

People in positions of authority who confuse their own, personal, wacky religious beliefs with the law of the land. For example, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[link] We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it, and that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law.

I would be very willing and able and supportive [to changes to the policy] to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity — whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual — that in my upbringing is not right.

Key phrases: "in my upbringing" and "what I believe".

How does a man become a General, for goodness' sake, and not understand that his own quaint little personal beliefs mean exactly nothing when it comes to setting policy, or writing laws for the entire population of the United States - who may or may not share his upbringing?

This is the reason why the concept of the neutral, secular state is so important. Separation of church and state is the only thing keeping our country from becoming a Christian theocracy. This is evident in the way that Christian dominionists work so hard to marginalize the concept, in print, in person, and through legislation.

Don't allow the wall to fall, folks. Fight back.

A few days ago Jim wrote about Spec. Jeremy Hall, a soldier assigned to Fort Riley's 97th Military Police Battalion, who filed suit against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a "Maj. Paul Welborne". Jeremy's suit claims that after he was given permission to hold a meeting of atheists, he was harassed by a Major, and by his fellow soldiers for being an atheist. The suit also claims that the Major threatened to block his re-enlistment for being an atheist. Lately Spec. Hall has been threatened in emails and blog posts from his fellow soldiers.

The Army replied that they could not locate anyone named "Major Paul Welborne".

Well, today the suit was amended to correct the spelling of the Major's name. It is "Major Freddy Welborn", and lawdy, lawdy, he's got a MySpace page. His "Interests" are:

The study of God's Word, Evangelism, Grandchildren and Family, and those Men called by God to Preach the Gospel.

Major Freddy describes himself like so:

MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl's Blurbs
About me:
Warrior for the Lord Jesus Christ. Currently serving w/3rd Inf Div Civil Military Operations (Governance) in Baghdad Iraq. Carla & I place all our Faith & Trust in our Savior the Lord Jesus - who provides eternal life to anyone that believes that he is the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived as God in the flesh (as man) was crucified, died, and was buried then rose from the grave the third day, then acended to the right hand of the Father - True repentance (turning away from Sin to God) Being born again, Forgivness & Justification occure to the True Believer in Christ when Baptized w/God's Holy Spirit. He who has the Son has life, he who has not the Son of God has not life. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It is by GRACE that we are saved thru Faith - It's a free gift and can't be earned. I love the Lord Jesus more than words can express, and seeking to gain a stronger relationship w/Him. I'll finish Bible College upon returning from Opns Iraqi Freedom.

Farther down, we see this little gem of an image.

I think he's a little, um, confused about the whole "1st Amendment" thing.

Hang in there Specialist Jeremy Hall. Don't let the godbots get you down. Stay safe.

So, after you get through the funnies and catch up on the news, pour yourself another cuppa and sit back to be completely terrified by this diary from dKos: BREAKING: George W. Bush closet "Joel's Army" member?

No, I didn't write it. I didn't even comment in it. But it sets forth a pretty convincing case that our president is actually an end-times dominionist, of the most strident premillennialist variety.

And when seen through this filter, a lot of the otherwise almost-insane words and actions of the president make a lot of very frightening sense.

So, read it. But be prepared to be scared.

Jim Downey

From the AP:

FORT RILEY, Kan. - A soldier who unsuccessfully tried to hold a meeting for atheists and other non-Christians is suing the Defense Department, claiming his right to religious freedom was violated.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Kansas City, Kan., alleges a pattern of practices that discriminate against non-Christians in the military. It was filed Monday, the 220th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. It names Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Maj. Paul Welborne.

According to the filing, Spec. Jeremy Hall, a soldier assigned to Fort Riley's 97th Military Police Battalion, received permission to distribute flyers around his base in Iraq for a meeting of atheists and non-Christians. When he tried to convene the meeting, Hall claims, Welborne stepped in, threatening to file military charges against Hall and block his reenlistment.

Last weekend a friend sent me a link to a long piece in the New York Times titled "The Politics of God", written by Columbia University humanities professor Mark Lilla. It was a difficult week here for me, so I didn't get around to reading the full article until this morning. I recommend you do so at your first opportunity, since the meat of the thing will help you to understand a fundamental threat that we face...it's just not the fundamental threat that the author of the piece talks about.

Laurence Auster is a leading far-right conservative author, one of the primary forces behind efforts to severely limit immigration and the "suicidal course of Western Civilization". He has published extensively at FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, NewsMax, and National Review. His website is called "View From the Right", subtitled "The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right."

OK, fine. So he's a wingnut conservative with a strong religious belief, who is fixated on Islam, and pretty much defines nativism (his 1990 book The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immmigration and Multiculturalism is considered by the 'mainstream right' as one of their seminal anti-immigration texts ). So what?

So, last month he came out with the following:

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."

Sali? Who is this fringe kook? Some mouth-breather I found posting inane and barely sane rants on some Dominionist site? Certainly, no *real*, mainstream, credible Christian could voice such things in a major news forum, right?

Let's have just a bit more:

According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."