If Michelle Bachmann doesn't want to be regarded as having close ties to dominionists then she should stop hiring them

Douglas Groothius clutches his pearls, flutters his handkerchief and collapses on his fainting couch over Ryan Lizza’s scandalous suggestion in The New Yorker that Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has ties to advocates of “dominionist” theology.

That fainting couch is quite crowded with evangelical critics of Lizza’s piece, all adamantly insisting that Bachmann is far, far removed from anything at all that has anything to do with dominionism. Groothuis provides a fine example of their exuberant protestations, usually mingled with accusations that Lizza is ignorant or confused or deliberately lying, or perhaps all three:

There is a buzz in the political beehive about the dark dangers of Bachmann’s association with “dominionism”—a fundamentalist movement heaven-bent on imposing a hellish theocracy on America. In the August 15 issue of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza asserts that Bachmann has been ideologically shaped by “exotic” thinkers of the dominionist stripe who pose a threat to our secular political institutions. The piece—and much of the subsequent media reaction—is a calamity of confusion, conflation, and obfuscation.

Foul, he cries, foul! It is simply unfair to accuse Bachmann of being influenced by “thinkers of the dominionist stripe!”

Warren Throckmorton notes that Bachmann aide Peter Waldron, “was key to Michele Bachmann’s straw poll win in Iowa on Aug. 13 and is now in South Carolina attempting to line up evangelicals for Bachmann.”

In 1987, Waldron co-authored a book titled, Rebuilding the Walls: A Biblical Strategy for Restoring America’s Greatness. A whiff of dominionist “reconstructionism,” perhaps, in that title. But much more than a whiff in the other book Waldron’s co-author, George Grant, published that same year.

That book, Changing the Guard, Throckmorton notices, was published by Dominion Press — the reconstructionist/dominionist publisher of books by Gary North, Gary DeMar and David Chilton, which is to say many of the leading voices in dominionism.

Here’s a snippet from the excerpt Throckmorton quotes from Grant’s book:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

The author of that book simultaneously co-authored a book on “a biblical strategy for restoring America’s greatness” with the man who is, at the moment, on Michelle Bachmann’s payroll and coordinating the religious outreach for her campaign in South Carolina.

It is not “paranoia” to suggest that Bachmann is closely tied to dominionism. It is not “confusion, conflation, and obfuscation” to point out that, in fact, Michelle Bachmann is hiring people who are closely tied to dominionism.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Smart people saying smart things (11.27)
And many times confused
Concordance-ism backfires for anti-gay preacher
Postcards from the culture war (12.1.16)
  • Launcifer

    I just want to know if he’s wearing bunny slippers….

  • http://www.nightphoenix.com Amaranth

    Do our drive-bys even bother to read the material in question before jumping in? Or do they think that if they just repeat the same points over and over again, they’ll magically become true…despite having been thoroughly, completely, and utterly debunked time and time again on this blog?

    I’ll admit, sometimes I go surfing around looking for blogs and articles I know in advance I’m going to disagree with, for the express purpose of making a comment to the effect of “hey, this is wrong, yo”, which I know perfectly well is going to make a stink…which, perhaps, could be considered trolling. But I at least read the other comments before I chime in, to get a feel for the tone of the place and to make sure the point I’m about to make hasn’t already been covered. It’s a courtesy thing, in my book…you don’t impose yourself on an ongoing conversation if you can’t be bothered to read up on what’s already been said.

    Really, what’s the point of rushing in and saying “You’re WRONG because X!!” when “X” has already been discussed, debunked, and dismissed?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    All of them? I’m only a nasty unbeliever, but surely we need to ensure that we’re only killing the innocent unborn children.

    Good point. Death to the guilty unborn children!

    Conservatives are all for killing them after they’re born, should they live in a country they want to bomb or commit a capital offense in a state that allows judicial murder of children. So your suggestion is fiscally responsible and therefore morally correct.

    We evil nonRTCs all agree and work together, after all.

    Do we? Don’t ask me; I’m one of those people Americans call ‘liberal’, so I don’t know how to tell the truth.

    Excuse me, please, Ms Teresamerica–can you please advise: are the religion left and unbelievers on the same side, or is there a triangle thing going on? Like maybe Rikalous here denies the truth whereas I’m trying to subvert it, so while we’re both enemies of good holy conservatives we are not allies to each other. Please help us with your unique ability to speak truth. Thanks so much.

  • Rikalous

    Do we? Don’t ask me; I’m one of those people Americans call ‘liberal’, so I don’t know how to tell the truth.

    Of course! That’s why atheists want to impose Sharia law, which is oh-so-much worse than Godly dominion. Consumer Unit already mentioned how Nazis are really socialists, and everyone knows that socialists are just like commies. I forget exactly how the gay agenda fits, but I know it’s in there somewhere.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I forget exactly how the gay agenda fits, but I know it’s in there somewhere.

     
    Well, as I understand it, by wanting to, you know, actually exist without hiding in fear we are impinging on their god-given right to deny us jobs, housing, insurance, family, ect. And according to one lovely Christian woman in Massachusetts our very existence is making it impossible for her to leave her house because she, and horror of horrors, her children might actually see gay people holding hands in the park, or (gasp) hugging, or kissing! The nerve!   

  • Rikalous

    Do we? Don’t ask me; I’m one of those people Americans call ‘liberal’, so I don’t know how to tell the truth.

    Of course! That’s why atheists want to impose Sharia law, which is oh-so-much worse than Godly dominion. Consumer Unit already mentioned how Nazis are really socialists, and everyone knows that socialists are just like commies. I forget exactly how the gay agenda fits, but I know it’s in there somewhere.

  • Ima Pseudonym

    Obviously, one of you always tells the truth, and the other one always lies.  The trick will be find the *one* question that will allow the asker to tell who is who… 

  • Anonymous

    You obviously are clueless when it comes to knowing the meaning of moral relativism. I truly feel sorry for you.
    That’s the second irony meter this week! Anyone know where I can get a solid bulk discount? I get the feeling I’m going to need it…

  • Hawker40

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — Epicurus

  • Anonymous

    Democrats are the ones who have created a culture of dependency which both instills and feeds off the poor being dependent on the government.

    Yeah, it’s as if poor people are addicted to food and shelter and education and protection from treatable diseases.  And like all addicts, they must be cut off.

    Did we really need a blurry, smudgy photocopy of Beatrix in this thread?  Isn’t one enough without having to deal with failed clone rejects?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    Clearly one isn’t enough, since we still reward them with attention and allow them to essentially dictate the course of every thread they decide to chime in on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    Clearly one isn’t enough, since we still reward them with attention and allow them to essentially dictate the course of every thread they decide to chime in on.

  • Anonymous

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things.

  • Anonymous

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things.

  • Anonymous

    You know, given we’re on an Evangelical blog that posts a Bible verse every Sunday, we sure do have a lot of people who want to convert our host to Christianity.

  • http://dcmoosings.blogspot.com LouC

    Exactly. If Obama were a dictator, he wouldn’t be moving his speech on jobs to a different day so that the Republican candidates for 2012 could have their debate in peace, now would he? We wouldn’t be talking about a 2012 election.

    I love how Obama was elected with one of the widest margins in recent presidential history, but when he claims a mandate, he’s called a dictator. Yet an election two years later with not nearly as many voters, and Republicans claim that they have the voters’ will. Ditto George Bush — who did not have the public majority in 2000 — claiming a mandate.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Ditto George Bush — who did not have the public majority in 2000 — claiming a mandate.

    Remember the whole “Unitary Executive” thing?  Dick Cheney being the “fourth branch of government”?

    Apparently some rightwingers are only opposed to ‘despotism’ when the despot isn’t wearing their team jersey.

    So now Obama’s in, and all these blowholes have instantly switched from “the Constitution is not a suicide pact!” to “Original intent!”

  • Lori

     Remember the whole “Unitary Executive” thing?  Dick Cheney being the “fourth branch of government”?  

    This is mostly irrelevent, but it still cracks me up when Jo Stewart refers to Cheney as Fourth Branch. It’s the “if you don’t laugh you’ll cry” kind, but it’s still laughter. 

  • Lori

     Remember the whole “Unitary Executive” thing?  Dick Cheney being the “fourth branch of government”?  

    This is mostly irrelevent, but it still cracks me up when Jo Stewart refers to Cheney as Fourth Branch. It’s the “if you don’t laugh you’ll cry” kind, but it’s still laughter. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Not any OTHER vice-president, mind you, JUST Dick Cheney.  He is the Fourth branch Of Government, now and forever.  :-P

    That reminds me of something I read earlier today:  Apparently, Dick Cheney has no pulse.  They’re SAYING that’s because of his new mechanical heart.  
    The truth is much, MUCH worse.  :D

  • Lori

    Holy crap. I leave for a few days to deal with some family stuff and come back to find that we’re not only feeding the trolls, we’ve apparently built them a trough and a water dish so they’ll feel comfortable sticking around. Dang. 

     

    Launcifer:  Bugger me, but the comments section really has gone down the shitter since the move, hasn’t it?

    You know, it really wasn’t that bad at first.  It’s only been the last few months that all these trolls have come out of the woodwork. Did troll!Gandalf leave a mark on the door or something? 

     

    The quality of discussion has only really fallen off in the last several weeks. Basically since Beatrix showed up and we granted her the power to derail any thread she chooses with her bullshit. I imagine that the rest of the trolls are either her sock puppets or part of a troll herd that followed her over here from The Anchoress or somewhere equally unpleasant. 

  • Lori

    Holy crap. I leave for a few days to deal with some family stuff and come back to find that we’re not only feeding the trolls, we’ve apparently built them a trough and a water dish so they’ll feel comfortable sticking around. Dang. 

     

    Launcifer:  Bugger me, but the comments section really has gone down the shitter since the move, hasn’t it?

    You know, it really wasn’t that bad at first.  It’s only been the last few months that all these trolls have come out of the woodwork. Did troll!Gandalf leave a mark on the door or something? 

     

    The quality of discussion has only really fallen off in the last several weeks. Basically since Beatrix showed up and we granted her the power to derail any thread she chooses with her bullshit. I imagine that the rest of the trolls are either her sock puppets or part of a troll herd that followed her over here from The Anchoress or somewhere equally unpleasant. 

  • Daughter

    If you look at the cities which have been controlled by progressives for years the poverty is much higher than in other places because the people running those places don’t want people to achieve success but they are in actually keeping them economically “chained” to poverty and dependent on the government.

    Which cities? Boston, Seattle, Portland, Houston? Those are liberal strongholds (the first three, most definitely, and the last one currently has a Democratic mayor) and are also  some of the nation’s most prosperous.Oh, wait… you mean the cities in the Midwestern rust-best? True, many of them are struggling.  But that may have more to do with the long-term economic decline of Midwest industries that progressive politics.

  • Daughter

    Add San Francisco to my list.

  • Lori

    I don’t want to feed this new troll. This one is, horrifyingly enough, way more long-winded than Bea. It should be pointed out though that, the Tim Tebow fantasy aside, most babies born after being diagnosed with significant congenital issues do not tell go on to tell amazing stories of triumph. Anyone who wants to use the “What if you aborted the next Inspirational Story?” argument also needs to deal honestly with the, “What if you aborted the next version of History’s Greatest Monster?” Naturally they never do. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

     

     This one is, horrifyingly enough, way more long-winded than Bea.

    And yet just as clueless and ignorant. I will say that at least this one seems to actually believe her rants, whereas Bea just posted screeds for attention. 

  • Lori

      I will say that at least this one seems to actually believe her rants, whereas Bea just posted screeds for attention. 

     

    True

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    “What if you aborted the next version of History’s Greatest Monster?” 

    Actually, that’s why The Rapture is behind schedule – The Antichrist got aborted back in the early 80s.  Do You Believe That?

  • Lori

    I don’t want to feed this new troll. This one is, horrifyingly enough, way more long-winded than Bea. It should be pointed out though that, the Tim Tebow fantasy aside, most babies born after being diagnosed with significant congenital issues do not tell go on to tell amazing stories of triumph. Anyone who wants to use the “What if you aborted the next Inspirational Story?” argument also needs to deal honestly with the, “What if you aborted the next version of History’s Greatest Monster?” Naturally they never do. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You know, here is something that confused me, RE: abortion and “biblical understanding”.  

    Where in the Bible does it ever mention abortion?  

    I mean, yeah, it says things like “Thou shalt not kill,” and such, but that is regarded as a sin subject to circumstance.  Why should abortion be considered special according to the Bible?  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You know, here is something that confused me, RE: abortion and “biblical understanding”.  

    Where in the Bible does it ever mention abortion?  

    I mean, yeah, it says things like “Thou shalt not kill,” and such, but that is regarded as a sin subject to circumstance.  Why should abortion be considered special according to the Bible?  

  • Anonymous

    Where in the Bible does it ever mention abortion?

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/10/the-bible-encourages-abortion/ doesn’t have the passage I’m thinking of, but it’s certainly got a fascinating passage.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Where in the Bible does it ever mention abortion?  

    I seem to recall Mosaic Law says that if you beat a woman so hard that she miscarries, you have to pay a fine.  That’s about it.

    And as meanies like me never tire of pointing out, God killed all the first-born of Egypt.  Presumably SOME of them weren’t irreparably evil…

  • http://dcmoosings.blogspot.com LouC

    The only example of abortion’s mention in the bible I’ve ever found was in, IIRC, Leviticus. And it was pro-abortion. Basically if a wife was pregnant and got caught sleeping with another man, Leviticus orders that she has to drink something made of a “bitter root.” if she then miscarries, it must have been the other man’s. If she doesn’t, it’s the husband’s and he has to acceot it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    O.o that seems like a “remedy” only a truly capricious lawgiver could make. So if she miscarries, she was unfaithful. If she doesn’t, she gets really sick and still has to bear a child she may not want. (>_<)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I like how this has gone from a conversation on dominionism to one about abortion. I wonder why that is?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I like how this has gone from a conversation on dominionism to one about abortion. I wonder why that is?

    Because if you can force people to follow your views on sex, you can probably force them to do ANYTHING.

  • Cathy W

    It *is* Thursday…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I honestly did forget what day of the week it is…so Flamewar Thursday…wonder if it’s too late for the fireproof underpants?

  • Ima Pseudonym

    “I like how this has gone from a conversation on dominionism to one about abortion. I wonder why that is? ”

    Possibly for the same reason that certain sensitive topics like, say, global warming, tend to bring in new commentors who start fights and sling mud until rational discussion all but stops and the conversation becomes entirely about them. These topics often involve money and power in some way and how those things change hands, or official policy that people at street level could conceivably change by writing government representatives or voting directly–and the posters in question rarely participate much in topics that don’t involve these things.  The topic of discussion shifts to the new poster instead of the issue originally being discussed and the level of discourse degenerates into name-calling and bickering.  The forum atmosphere becomes hostile and combative, serving to drive away some of the regular posters or encourage them to remain silent for fear of inviting personal attack.  Lurkers may not feel safe in taking part in the forum, further reducing participation and readership. Some lurkers who are already on the fence, may be swayed against the topic, and others who already strongly hold a position against the given subject walk away with their views validated and strengthened. 

    For the record, I’m not describing posters like the honorable Anursa, who are reasonable people who happen to strongly hold views and opinions that may run contrary to one’s own.

  • Ima Pseudonym

    AUnursa.  Sorry ’bout that.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Well, that’s Godwin.  We’re done here.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Well, that’s Godwin.  We’re done here.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, if dominionism means spreading morality and Christ’s Teachings I fess up…. I’m all for Dominionism.  We are supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion as most Lefties ascribe to and have imposed on the public in our culture. 

    Are there going to be any atheists or secularists and liberals left in Congress if Perry or Bachmann should happen to win the presidency? According to the Constitution the people have a right to elect their representatives so this over hyped article on “dominionism” is a total exaggeration of their choosing to have Christian people assist them in the WH. Should Obama have all commies/liberals and sexual perverts like Kevin Jennings assisting him? Is Obama and his cronies committing the ultimate commie dominionism over the people now? Oh yeah. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Oh, goodie, she’s back.

    We are supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion as most Lefties ascribe to and have imposed on the public in our culture.

    You don’t want “freedom from religion”?  Fine.  Go like under self-imposed Shari’a law, and shut up and let the rest of us get on with our lives without having to grovel before whichever idol you choose to worship.  This is America, and laws here need to have a slightly better basis than “My god will get VERY VERY ANGRY if you do that!”.

    Should Obama have all commies/liberals and sexual perverts like Kevin Jennings assisting him?

    Um, a Republican should NOT be yelling about perverts in the other party.  Let he who doesn’t live in a glass house cast the first stone, and all that?

    Is Obama and his cronies committing the ultimate commie dominionism over the people now?

    So now you’re saying the corporate bailout president… is a Commie.  

    Is your divorce from Reality finalized yet, or are the two of you still in the trial separation phase?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Oh, goodie, she’s back.

    We are supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion as most Lefties ascribe to and have imposed on the public in our culture.

    You don’t want “freedom from religion”?  Fine.  Go like under self-imposed Shari’a law, and shut up and let the rest of us get on with our lives without having to grovel before whichever idol you choose to worship.  This is America, and laws here need to have a slightly better basis than “My god will get VERY VERY ANGRY if you do that!”.

    Should Obama have all commies/liberals and sexual perverts like Kevin Jennings assisting him?

    Um, a Republican should NOT be yelling about perverts in the other party.  Let he who doesn’t live in a glass house cast the first stone, and all that?

    Is Obama and his cronies committing the ultimate commie dominionism over the people now?

    So now you’re saying the corporate bailout president… is a Commie.  

    Is your divorce from Reality finalized yet, or are the two of you still in the trial separation phase?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Oh, yeah.  Let’s say that due to some bizarre incident involving a time machine and a radioactive gorilla, Islam somehow becomes the majority religion in the USA.  Are you going to be perfectly happy letting THAT majority make all the laws in line with their religion?  

    if not, explain why not.  Then think if you can extrapolate from that to why people might not be happy letting your favorite preacher set themselves up as Ayatollah.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    We are supposed to have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

    Right there in black and white: Freedom of religion and from religion. 

    I have supported my claims

    No you haven’t.

    STOP MURDERING OUR CHILDREN.

    I haven’t murdered anyone, child or adult. 

    sexual perverts like Kevin Jennings

    Ah, and your a bigot. Big surprise. 

    And, yes, people have a right to elect their Representatives they, however, do not have the right to force their religious views on others. 

  • WingedBeast

    Um, what is the difference, in your worldview between “spreading Christ’s teachings” and “enforcing Christ’s teachings upon people who might not agree”?

    Oh, and Christ commanded everybody to give up all worldly possession and work day and night for the well-being of the poor.  Does it ever strike you that Jesus was advocating communism?

  • Rikalous

    Okay, if dominionism means spreading morality and Christ’s Teachings I
    fess up…. I’m all for Dominionism. 

    Me too! That’s why I comment on a blog devoted to morality and Christ’s Teachings. Heck, if dominionism means regularly petting puppies, I’m still all for it! If dominionism means radical Christians trying to turn the US into a theocracy, then I’m not in favor.

    We are supposed to have freedom of
    religion and not freedom from religion as most Lefties ascribe to and
    have imposed on the public in our culture.

    I’m going to turn this over to the man on the nickel:

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common
    law.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10,
    1814

    the reason being:

    But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
    twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
    my leg.

    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    Apropos of our now rather caps-locky visitor:

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

  • Joel’s Army

    Will there be any atheists or secularists or liberals left in Congress? Not if we who follow the Holy Words of Christ have anything to with it. Once we, who they call “Dominionists” have retaken this USA, this COUNTRY OF GOD, we will execute all those who opposed us. There will be no atheists. There will be no secularists. There will be no liberals. We will use their skulls to raise MIGHTY ALTARS TO GOD, just as the Sovereign Lord Jesus commands us! And when we have control, we will initiate the End Times, where will be GLORIFIED BEYOND PRAISE BY JESUS HIMSELF! Hallelujah!

  • Rikalous

    We will use their skulls to raise MIGHTY ALTARS TO GOD, just as the Sovereign Lord Jesus commands us!

    You may be thinking of the Blood God Khorne. If not, can you provide chapter and verse in support of skull altars?

  • Lori

    Given the handle “Joel’s Army” I’m assuming our thread necromancer is a Poe. On the off chance the s/he is not, I don’t think we want to poke the whackadoo. You know? The actual Joel’s Army is a nasty bunch and we don’t need to go there. 

  • Rikalous

    Given the handle “Joel’s Army” I’m assuming our thread necromancer is a
    Poe. On the off chance that s/he is not, I don’t think we want to poke
    the whackadoo. You know? The actual Joel’s Army is a nasty bunch and we
    don’t need to go there.

    Wasn’t aware Joel’s Army was a thing. I note from the profile that hir other two comments are actually sane, so I guess you’re right on the Poe thing. Probably should have checked before responding.

  • Anonymous

    I note from the profile that hir other two comments are actually sane, so I guess you’re right on the Poe thing.

    Please to not be confusing ‘insane’ and ‘whackadoo’. The comparison is insulting to the mentally ill.

  • Lori
  • http://twitter.com/jclor jclor

    I’m pretty sure this rant was taken from an old Conan the Barbarian King-Size Annual.  Sub Hyperboria for this USA, The Shambling God for S.L. Jesus … well, you get the idea.

    Also: bonus crazy points for SHOUTY CAPS

  • Lunch Meat

    I think anyone who supports abortion is selfish and that includes Obama.

    People are dying every day, from the lack of kidneys, lungs, and livers. Have you already donated one kidney, one lung, and all the lobes of your liver that you can spare to make sure that one more life is saved? Why not donate all your organs, that way you could save as many people as you have organs! Yeah, you’d probably die, but God might give you a miracle and let you live! If you wouldn’t consider giving up a part of your body to save one of the thousands/millions of people who die every day from want of an organ, then that makes you selfish. You are putting your “right” to comfort and bodily integrity over the right of another person to live.

    Please explain what the difference is between that and you demanding that I allow another person to live in my uterus for the better part of a year, if I did not invite them there.

    Also, the Bible says that a true, souled human life begins when the first breath is taken. Don’t believe me? Read the second chapter of Genesis.

    I gotta say, I’m kind of offended at the assumption that the troll is female. Did I miss hir saying that? If so, I retract my offense.

  • Rikalous

    I gotta say, I’m kind of offended at the assumption that the troll is
    female. Did I miss hir saying that? If so, I retract my offense.

    I figured zie was female based on the name (containing “Teresa” as it does) and the picture. I don’t think zie said one way or another.

  • Lunch Meat

    Oh, I guess you’re right. I usually don’t assume Internet handles (specially of trolls) have any meaning to them, so I don’t pay attention. But the profile would seem to agree with you. Well, crap.

  • Lunch Meat

    Oh, I guess you’re right. I usually don’t assume Internet handles (specially of trolls) have any meaning to them, so I don’t pay attention. But the profile would seem to agree with you. Well, crap.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    Also, the Bible says that a true, souled human life begins when the first breath is taken. Don’t believe me? Read the second chapter of Genesis.

    Funny how the Bible is literally true except for those parts that don’t agree with their preconceived notions. 

    I gotta say, I’m kind of offended at the assumption that the troll is female. Did I miss hir saying that? If so, I retract my offense.

    Like Rikalous said I’m going by handle and picture. If the poster is, in fact, female I find all the internalized misogyny quite sad.   

  • Lori

     You all are waging a jihad on innocent unborn babies. abortion = slavery. All you anti-lifers are Nazi pigs. Have nice lives filled with evil.  

    And there we have just about the best possible argument for going with “whackaloon”. 

  • Lori

     I support ALL LIFE. STOP MURDERING OUR CHILDREN.  

    Isn’t it interesting that they’re supposedly OUR CHILDREN when the only one who has to sacrifice for them is the pregnant woman, but once they’re born and others could help they’re suddenly a matter of Personal Responsibility? 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Isn’t it interesting that they’re supposedly OUR CHILDREN when the only one who has to sacrifice for them is the pregnant woman, but once they’re born and others could help they’re suddenly a matter of Personal Responsibility?

    Funny she keeps ranting about Communism when she apparently wants to nationalize wombs.

    “I’m going to declare my uterus a corporation so I can do what I want with it.” – A very funny friend of mine.

  • Anonymous

    That reminds me of something I read earlier today:  Apparently, Dick Cheney has no pulse.  They’re SAYING that’s because of his new mechanical heart.  The truth is much, MUCH worse.  :D

    I remember back when Dubya first took office, there was some concern about Cheney’s age and health, and the possibility that he might die before the end of his term.  And then, after a few years had passed, the concern became that perhaps he could never die, that he was some indestructible lich-entity impervious to age or the weapons of mortal man, unless some intrepid band of knights-errant were to disentomb the eons-sealed chthonic vault which housed his mummified heart, and drive a holly-wrapped silver needle through the loathsome, pulsing thing.  I admit the possibility that I’ve romanticized the issue somewhat.

    It *is* Thursday…

    And, compounding the problem, we’ve been months now with nary a pie discussion.  Which reminds me, I sure could handle a big, warm slice of pecan à la mode right now.

  • P J Evans

    I remember back when Dubya first took office, there was some concern
    about Cheney’s age and health, and the possibility that he might die
    before the end of his term.  And then, after a few years had passed, the
    concern became that perhaps he could never die, that he was some
    indestructible lich-entity impervious to age or the weapons of mortal
    man, unless some intrepid band of knights-errant were to disentomb the
    eons-sealed chthonic vault which housed his mummified heart, and drive a
    holly-wrapped silver needle through the loathsome, pulsing thing.

    Personally, I’m hoping when the rest of him dies, and they do an autopsy, that they skewer the remains of his natural heart with a chopstick soaked in garlic juice and wrapped with silver wire. And leave the stick in the remains of the heart, to be buried with him. Also, stick a head of garlic in his mouth….

  • Lori

    I generally consider it bad form to joke about the possible death of someone with a serious health condition. That said, forget the hurricanes and the east coast earthquake. If anything that has happened to America recently is in fact a sign of God’s wrath it’s that Fourth Branch lived long enough to publish his self-serving memoir.  

  • P J Evans

    Not joking about his death, but about what’s left after it. Which is not him, after all, except in the physical sense. (I joke about my father donating his body to a medical school: ‘my father, the working stiff’.)

  • Lori

     Not joking about his death, but about what’s left after it. Which is not him, after all, except in the physical sense. 

    Crap, I’m so sorry. I phrased that poorly and honestly didn’t mean to sound like I was chiding you. I was really addressing my own nigh-irresistible urge to make much, much worse jokes about Cheney’s health and possible demise. 

    I try not to speal ill of the un-dead, but that man really tries the limits of my personal standards.

  • P J Evans

    Not a problem. I’d post what I think they need to have at his future gravesite, but that really would be pushing it.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I’d post what I think they need to have at his future gravesite, but that really would be pushing it.

    A urinal?

  • Rikalous

    Personally, I’m hoping when the rest of him dies, and they do an
    autopsy, that they skewer the remains of his natural heart with a
    chopstick soaked in garlic juice and wrapped with silver wire. And leave
    the stick in the remains of the heart, to be buried with him. Also,
    stick a head of garlic in his mouth….

    Yeah, and bury the bits under different crossroads. Preferably ones with heavy traffic, just to hedge our bets.

    You know, we might be overreacting. He might just be extending his lifetime High Priest Dios style, using various pointy monuments.

  • WingedBeast

    Always respect for a Terry Pratchett reference!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    For what it’s worth, I think demonizing Cheney sort of misses the point. Cheney is a very bad man, yes, but he didn’t spring fully formed from some Hell pit like some kind of Buffy the Vampire Slayer villain. He was elected to office — at least once. His policies on torture and other egregious violations of civil liberties and separation of powers weren’t forced onto the United States government through dark sorcery — they were enthusiastically embraced by the Congress and the media. What’s worse — even after his true colors were unmasked, even after everyone knew he was an authoritarian leader, he and Bush were elected again by a majority of voters.

    Cheney might have been the person to officially enact these policies but the willingness to pursue them goes far beyond him. Remember when Mitt Romney bragged about wanting to double Guantanamo during a Presidential primary debate a few years ago? He wouldn’t have said that during a campaign if he didn’t think it was a message that would resonate with more voters than just Cheney.

    Honestly, this is something that we as a human species have to confront. It’s tempting to pick the iconic architect of a hated policy and try to suggest that it was all his fault, and to a certain extent that’s valid. But (at the risk of Godwinnin), just as I doubt that the Holocaust would have happened if Hitler was the only anti-Semite in Europe, I also doubt that torture and indefinite imprisonment would have become instruments of U.S. terror-prosecution policy if Cheney was the only person in America who supported them. He wasn’t an aberration; he was a man of his times.

  • Lori

     Cheney might have been the person to officially enact these policies but the willingness to pursue them goes far beyond him. 

    Believe me, my utter loathing of Cheney does not in any way prevent me from understanding how he got his power and being really, really upset about it. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    Neat, I guess. I mean, I don’t want you to be upset (that’s not neat!) but I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that this is a problem that goes beyond Cheney (although he is definitely culpable and deserves every bit of loathing that he gets, plus a bit more).

  • Lunch Meat

    Contraception only re-enforces a “safe sex” promiscuous mentality IMO.

    My husband and I cannot afford a baby right now. Absolutely cannot. I desperately want children, but I know that the responsible thing to do is to wait until we have the means and the maturity to support them as they deserve. Are you saying that in the confines of a church-recognized, God-honoring, loving, committed-until-death relationship, sex should be dangerous? Since when did the greatest gift of God, the highest expression of love, become a “risk” to be avoided? I am honestly asking this. It makes me sad.

    Outside Christianity and Christian morals of sex, I would far rather have one woman be safely promiscuous, then have that woman and her ten children be poor, homeless and hungry, victimized by the men she depends on for support. It may bother you to hear this, but not everyone agrees with us that promiscuity is a bad thing. It is not our place to dictate the morals of everyone. If two people consent to whatever they’re doing, that’s their prerogative. It’s not our right to make sure they don’t get away with it by punishing them with babies.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Excuse me, @Teresamerica:disqus , I addressed you in response to your smear against the religious left, and you appear to be hanging around, so it would be polite to respond.

    First, you are jumping between a multitude of concepts as if they are equivalent: left wing, liberal, “pro-abortion”, Democrat. Don’t do that. Left wing and liberal are not the same thing. Most left wingers in the world, and most ‘liberals’ in the American sense, are not Democrats because most of the world is not American. And don’t you dare to presume my views on abortion unless I state them.

    Second, to be clear: are you a pacifist? Are you opposed to capital punishment? Are you opposed to economic systems that kill the poor? In other words, do you subscribe to the consistent life ethic?

  • Anonymous

    If five exclamation points are a sign of a deranged mind, what do over forty question marks signify?

    Typically, that somebody has escaped from Arkham Asylum and is concocting diabolical riddles from his lair in the abandoned Gotham Jigsaw Puzzle factory.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVT7C7S6IP2OC44PFUZGAJ4OBM JohnK

    Lex Luthor used forty exclamation points! That is four tens! And that’s terrible!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I don’t understand the whole, “I would rather have birth control in the form of contraceptives rather than abortions.  But contraception is what led to abortions” line myself. Personally I think the whole which came first thing is rather pointless as they probably happened close together. Of course if you want to back to the first recorded evidence of both of them, well, the first recorded induced abortion 1550 B.C.E (Egyptian Ebers Papyrus); earliest document explicitly referring to contraceptives is the Kuhn gynaecological papyrus from around 1850 B.C.E. Still doesn’t really prove anything besides the fact that both were practiced in the past and that acacia gum is an effective spermicide (as is still used as such today). 

    Logic tells me that if I really want to end, or dramatically reduce, abortions then the best possible way for that to happen is easy access to contraceptives and to actually have comprehensive sex education (which does include discussing abstinence but doesn’t assume that just telling someone not to do something will make them not do it).  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Logic tells me that if I really want to end, or dramatically reduce, abortions then the best possible way for that to happen is easy access to contraceptives and to actually have comprehensive sex education (which does include discussing abstinence but doesn’t assume that just telling someone not to do something will make them not do it).

    I remember my sexual health teacher back in high school told us that she was once hired by a church to do sex-ed for some of their older Sunday school students.  However, they made it a condition that though she could be comprehensive, she had to stress that abstinance was the only absolutely guaranteed safe choice (divine intervention aside.)  She agreed, because technically it was, just not necessarily the only one she expects people to practice for the duration of their life, and they should know about the other options when that eventuality comes about.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I don’t understand the whole, “I would rather have birth control in the form of contraceptives rather than abortions.  But contraception is what led to abortions” line myself. Personally I think the whole which came first thing is rather pointless as they probably happened close together. Of course if you want to back to the first recorded evidence of both of them, well, the first recorded induced abortion 1550 B.C.E (Egyptian Ebers Papyrus); earliest document explicitly referring to contraceptives is the Kuhn gynaecological papyrus from around 1850 B.C.E. Still doesn’t really prove anything besides the fact that both were practiced in the past and that acacia gum is an effective spermicide (as is still used as such today). 

    Logic tells me that if I really want to end, or dramatically reduce, abortions then the best possible way for that to happen is easy access to contraceptives and to actually have comprehensive sex education (which does include discussing abstinence but doesn’t assume that just telling someone not to do something will make them not do it).  

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    In all seriousness, I’m surprised Dick Cheney has lasted this long. He’s pushing 70 and has had four heart attacks.

    Then again, Pope John Paul II held out for years longer than I expected the old bastard to. When he finally fucking croaked I cheered.

    I won’t cry over Cheney, that’s for sure.

  • http://www.nightphoenix.com Amaranth

    Well this is what I get for running off for a while.

    Reading through this, I’ve changed my mind. Teresamerica, I don’t think you’re a troll, and I apologize for having called you one. I think you sincerely believe the views you’ve expressed, and perhaps honestly don’t realize how belittling and stupid they sound to people who’ve heard the same arguments a hundred times before. Or maybe you do, and you think that people here can be shocked into believing you. I don’t know. Frankly, none of what you’ve said is new.

    I don’t know how much of what you believe is based on what you’ve worked out for yourself or simply what you’ve been told. I don’t know that it matters. I do think there are a number of real issues and problems with a worldview that consists of “anti-abortion, anti-birth control, Obama-is-a-tyrantdictatorsocialist, the poor-are-lazy-bums, liberals and Demoncrats are evil liars who hate the Bible, etc”…that maybe you haven’t considered. People matter more than morals. People matter more than traditions. It is not right to sacrifice real human beings with real problems and real suffering upon your alter of Morality. “The Sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the Sabbath”, and all that.

    It’s tempting to simplify the issues. It’s tempting to set up strawmen to knock down, because then at least it feels like you’re accomplishing *something*. The world is screwed up and sometimes we all feel so small and helpless to stop it. I don’t wish for Republicans to actually leave poor people on the streets to starve, or physically take away old peoples’ medicine, or put homosexual people in front of firing squads, or force women to bear children that will kill them…I don’t want that. But at the same time, if they were doing all those things, it would be so easy and so clear and so right to hate them. It’s tempting to pretend they ARE doing these things, just so I could have someone to direct my anger and frustration at. Baring that, it’s tempting to pretend they *want* to do these things. But they aren’t doing these things. And while I can’t speak for all Republicans, I know they aren’t one unified, evil block of monsters. They’re people.

    You think “baby-killing liberals” and “lying Democrats” and “tyrannical socialist dictators”  are your enemies. No. We aren’t your enemy. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say we probably want more or less the same thing: We want everyone to live long, happy, fulfilling lives. We don’t want innocents to die. We don’t want people to suffer. We want justice served for those who’ve wronged us and ours. And our enemies haven’t changed: Human greed, human short-sightedness, human pride, human folly.

    Nothing is black and white. We don’t live in an ideal world.

    *trigger warning: rape, death*

    Women do not use abortion as birth control. No women aborts a child out of malice. No woman aborts a child out of whim. No woman aborts a child out of selfishness. Women abort because they know if they don’t, they won’t be able to feed their other children. Women abort because their parents will throw them out onto the street if they don’t. Women abort because they know childbirth will kill them, and they feel they have a responsibility to stay alive for their husbands, boyfriends, and/or other children. Women abort because they can’t bear to have their bodies used without their consent for nine effing months, when they’re still having nightmares about the few minutes a man used them without their consent. Women abort because they cannot bear the idea of a fatally deformed child gasping out his/her last short moments in agony.

    Risking one’s life for the sake of another is a moral choice. Forcing said person to risk their life is saying you have no regard for that person’s life. Their life is not yours to sacrifice for the sake of another. It is theirs.

    Forcing a woman in these circumstances to bear a child against her will is more morally reprehensible to many of us than ending the life of a potential person. Because many of us believe that the real, live, actual woman matters more than the person that fetus might become, if it survives to term. The mother’s pain matters. Her wishes matter. When it comes down to the hard, real-life choices (and that’s what abortion is), existing life trumps potential life. That’s the reason many of us are pro-choice. What one does with one’s own life must be up to the individual, because we don’t live in an ideal world.

    Sorry for the wall o’ text. I’m done.

  • Anonymous

    Women do not use abortion as birth control. No women aborts a child out of malice. No woman aborts a child out of whim. No woman aborts a child out of selfishness.

    I’d also like to add to this: a friend’s significant other ended up needing to get an abortion. The recovery was agonizingly painful for her (though mercifully short). It’s not a pill you pop while the fetus magically disappears.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Women do not use abortion as birth control. No women aborts a child out of malice. No woman aborts a child out of whim. No woman aborts a child out of selfishness.

    Agreed, but I feel it’s important to add this: 

    Even if women did, that’s none of your damned business. That’s nobody’s business but theirs. Even if a woman wanted an abortion out of whimsical, selfish malice, because she had an atypical sense of humor and found it fun. Even if she did it purely because she hated God and Jesus and wanted to thumb her nose and uterus at them. It’s still none of anyone’s damned business but hers.

  • WingedBeast

    When it comes to the whole abortion issue, I keep on thinking that everybody who really is pro-life can learn a lot from the story of the wind and the sun.  I wonder what the reaction would be if I stood outside a meeting of some pro-life group and handed that Aesop’s fable out in pamphlets.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NYIMSCWWLA5XTAYXL3FXNCJZ7I Kiba

    I wonder what the reaction would be if I stood outside a meeting of some pro-life group and handed that Aesop’s fable out in pamphlets.

    They would probably relate to the sun and see it as further proof for how persecuted they are. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     I wonder what the reaction would be if I stood outside a meeting of some pro-life group and handed that Aesop’s fable out in pamphlets.

    I’m inclined to guess “AHH!  PAGANISM!!@!”. but I’m in an uncharitable mood right now.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Abortion. I’ve had several go-rounds in several fora over the last decade-plus and it keeps coming back to the same thing for me.

    As a man, I can only take one ethically and morally permissible stance: pro-choice.

    I’ll never have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy; I’m not personally affected by any law on abortion.

    But women are so affected, and it is impermissible for me to advocate any anti-abortion position because it puts me in a position of dictating to women what they may or may not do with their own bodies.

    I’m going to just steal/re-paste what I wrote a long time ago, because I feel it offers the most cogent defence of access to abortion:

    As I see it (and I’m sure there’s a zillion legal scholars who’ve written whole books on the subject), law is an expression of the Social Contract, wherein the people who live in the society have given up their rights to the Leviathan (which I conceptualize as being democratically elected with no effects on Hobbes’s theory): their right to hurt or kill someone else for any or no reason.

    Since those rights are given up to the Leviathan, in exchange the Leviathan protects all who are within the social contract from attack without and subversion within.

    So no one in a society may harm or kill another person, ultimately, because the mutual defence pact known as the social contract forbids this.

    One can go beyond my ersatz Hobbesian theory and say that basic human decency also commands not hurting or killing, but the Hobbesian theory assumes nothing about human nature as a starting point that needs to be incorporated into the theory, IMV.

    So, what is law?

    Law fulfills the function of guaranteeing protection from harm or death. But none of
    that presupposes the morality or lack of morality of harm or death – only that humans in the same social contract are obliged to not do these things.

    (I realize this can sound like the legalist chinese theory that all humans are inherently bad and need to be kept in line with harsh laws.)

    I’m not that morbid. :)

    So any law that tries to go beyond the guarantee of freedom from harm or death is suspect, because it encroaches on areas in which rights are NOT given up to the
    Leviathan.

    For example, my right to imbibe any intoxicating substance I wish in the privacy of my own home is clearly not one I give up to the Leviathan because harming myself does not affect the social contract.

    Ditto consensual sexual relations. Ditto-ditto what books I want to read. Ditto-ditto-ditto the kind of car I want to drive.

    So how does this affect abortion? Should the fetus be given the aegis of guarantee of protection from harm or death?

    I say no, and the reason is this: since there is a definite guarantee of protection from harm and death for the mother, this must take primacy. The death of the fetus will not necessarily harm or kill the mother. The death of the mother will most assuredly harm the fetus. In short, the fetus cannot give up its rights to the Leviathan because it is not capable, in any meaningful way, of participating in the social contract.

    Thus, the mother must have access to abortion if it is necessary that she have one.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I would like to add that, as a man, I had myself sterilized at age twenty-one in part so I would never be responsible for putting a woman in a position where she would have to make the difficult choice to abort a fetus or not. 

    It may not be my body that is being decided on, but that does not mean I would not share responsibility for that choice even coming up.  This way, no woman will be made to agonize over it because of me. 

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    So, anyway.  Dominionism.  Aside from not voting for theocratic dingbats, and gritting our teeth and supporting the less-noxious team, what can we do about it?

  • WingedBeast

    Mandatory actual constitutional law courses for all Dominionists.  Specifically, the number of times Christians have attempted to use the law in order to supress the rights of differently thinking Christians.

    Those most willing to enforce their morality upon people who disagree are those who most need to learn that the corollary of “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you” is “That which is done to others can be done to you.”

    In general, I think that’s a piece of information that seems to be lacking in a lot of conservative mindset.

  • Lori

     So, anyway.  Dominionism.  Aside from not voting for theocratic dingbats, and gritting our teeth and supporting the less-noxious team, what can we do about it?  

     

    I think there are 2 main things the average person can do about dominionsim. 

    First, push back against the idea that the separation of church and state is some sort of Liberal lie. Teresamerica was pushing the Right Wing talking point on that hard (as was completely to be expected) when she trotted out the old “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion”. Everyone needs to know the actual truth about that well enough to respond without having to think much about it.  

    The second thing is to treat dominionist views like they matter and don’t allow them to be pushed aside as trivial or with the old “they all do it” spiel. Beatrix jumped right into this thread making the “it’s nothing” claim and aunursa provided a (poorly constructed, false) version of “the Left is no different”. 

    Dominionsim is a real thing and it does have influence. In fact its influence is out of proportion the number of adherents precisely because it focuses on earthly power. The fact that many dominionists don’t like to call themselves dominionists doesn’t change what they are, it’s not just like other religious beliefs and no, everyone doesn’t do it.  

  • Anonymous

    First, push back against the idea that the separation of church and state is some sort of Liberal lie. Teresamerica was pushing the Right Wing talking point on that hard (as was completely to be expected) when she trotted out the old “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion”. Everyone needs to know the actual truth about that well enough to respond without having to think much about it.

    One version of that talking point is, “The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere to be found in the Constitution!”  I know the general counterargument against this — that there’s way more to law than what’s written in the Constitution (otherwise judicial review would also be a phantom), and that the Establishment Clause has been interpreted by generations of judges to mean separation of church and state.  I just wish I had a pithier, less clunky, more soundbite-y way of saying it.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    One version of that talking point is, “The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere to be found in the Constitution!”

    My usual response is an exasperated expounding of “Establishment clause!  It’s right there!  One of the first things written in the document!  You can’t miss it!”

  • Anonymous

    To be fair, a lot of them don’t really believe in judicial review either.

  • Rikalous

    One version of that talking point is, “The phrase ‘separation of church
    and state’ is nowhere to be found in the Constitution!”  I know the
    general counterargument against this — that there’s way more to law
    than what’s written in the Constitution (otherwise judicial review
    would also be a phantom), and that the Establishment Clause has been
    interpreted by generations of judges to mean separation of church and
    state.  I just wish I had a pithier, less clunky, more soundbite-y way
    of saying it.

    This sounds like a job for…Thomas Jefferson!

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
    between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
    his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
    reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
    reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
    that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment
    of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus
    building a wall of separation between church and State.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association,
    CT., Jan. 1, 1802

    Translated to soundbite: “You’re right. It appears in a letter by Thomas Jefferson describing the Constitution. You think Thomas Jefferson didn’t understand the Constitution?” 

    Fun fact about TJ: when he was running for president, he was smeared as a bible-burning, sodomy-teaching atheist. Sound familiar?

  • Lori

     One version of that talking point is, “The phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere to be found in the Constitution!”  

    Oy, that one is irksome. They get mad at you for treating them as if they’re stupid and then claim to be unable to grasp the concept of logical inference. That’s especially rich coming from the supposed Biblical literalists. The word “abortion” never appears in the Bible and they still find the concept in there. There are no Biblical commandments against sex between women, but they still think lesbians are going to hell. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And then you know what the sophistry is about that wall?

    LOL ONE WAY WAAAAAAAAAAALL WE R SO CLEVUR AT LOOPHOLES.

    I’m amazed steam hasn’t come out of my ears at the sheer blockheadedness of that stupid “loophole”.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t get it. How can a wall be ‘one-way’?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    They must believe the Constitution is like police glass when it comes to one-way views.

  • Lori

     I don’t get it. How can a wall be ‘one-way’? 

    Exactly. 

    You get it just fine. They do not. Their cleverness is of the not-at-all-clever, totally-transparent-manipulation-of-reality-for-personal-gain variety. 

  • Anonymous

    I guess, but let’s say that a wall really is one-way — what does that mean in terms of the metaphor “wall of separation between church and state”. Are they trying to say that it really should mean that one should control the other or… what?

    I get the feeling that it’s supposed to be a pun or something on the word ‘wall’ but I can’t quite figure it out. Usually I can figure out what they mean (such as when they try to say something like, “You’re a bigot for discriminating against bigots”; it’s really stupid but I can see where the false equivocation is coming from). Here, I don’t even understand the silly point that they’re supposed to be making.

  • Kish

    They are saying that, because it is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers wanted their government not to be a theocracy, if any of them said there was a “wall between church and state,” they must have meant a wall preventing the state from dictating to the church while freely permitting the church to dictate to the state.

    There is nothing more to understand about their position; it’s as simple as that.

  • Albanaeon

    So, basically ignoring actual history and actual references to go out of the way to put in a very non-standard interpretation of a word to justify a position that is dubious at best, to downright appalling in practice?

    Sounds about right.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Here’s an atheism.about.com article that discusses that one-way wall load of hokum.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, Invisible, Lori, and Kish! I think I see it now. It’s not a pun; they’re just reinterpreting the metaphor to mean something else, even if it makes the entire thing fall to pieces. It’s probably the stupidest version of this point I’ve ever read, since it literally doesn’t make any sense even if you agree with the belief (how exactly would you build a wall that’s completely impenetrable in one direction and completely porous from the other?!) but I guess it’s not really reasonable to expect anything better, right?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Here’s an atheism.about.com article that discusses that one-way wall load of hokum.

  • Lori

    What Kish said. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I have always subscribed to the notion that “Good walls make good neighbors.”  I know there is often a more negative connotation associated with building walls between things, seeing it as a “keep out” sign, but I see such walls as more of a cooperative thing.  They exist on the border of property and areas of responsibility, and neither partner can build the wall without the agreement and help of the other.  A wall is rather a metaphor for cooperation, that even when parties have their own areas, they can still work together to the benefit of both without stepping on each other’s toes.  

    The problem is that when one partner decides not to respect the wall, decides that they are not going to help maintain it, what protects them from the other partner saying “Fine, screw you,” and pushing their territory back beyond their own borders?  

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Speaking of neighbors, this Donald Duck cartoon seems quite a propos.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Speaking of neighbors, this Donald Duck cartoon seems quite a propos.

  • Alencon

    Sorry to disappoint you but according to the Supreme Court the 1st Amendment also gurantees freedom FROM religion. Live with it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the throne of Khorne!

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the throne of Khorne!

    To be honest though, I feel like the Dominionists are closer in spirit to the Imperium.  “Purge the mutant, the alien, the heretic,” “Trust in the Emperor, He is our protector and your faith in Him is your shield,” and all that.

  • Canadianbroad

    As as anonymous Canadian passing by, I am truly torn between the horror at what one of our nearest “neighbour” states has unleashed, and excited by the opportunities she represents.
    Hey, if Canadians could get filthy rich smuggling booze in the 1920s, why not get filthy rich now? I can see how books, movies, DVDs of TV shows, music, could all become precious and scarce commodities in the next 10 years in The U.S. … Awesome man, I’ll just hide the Russell and Dawkins and Salinger in a truck-load o’ bibles! (KJV, of course!)

    Just sign me:

    LoLing all the way to the bank …

  • Rockon

    I suspect that Throckmorton isn’t the only professor in Grove City that shares his ideology. Throckmorton is exposing himself to be a leftist more and more. His article on about Michele Bachmann and uses and tries to give credibility to the term “dominionist.” (A term taken out of the book of Genesis and re-defined by liberals to mean all those who want to establish a Christian theocracy as the rule of law), proves as such. The word “dominion” in Genesis was in reference to when GOD said that humans will rule over all OTHER creatures on Earth, not each other. And obviously Throckmorton is not a real Christian, because Christianity being based off of Natural Law is not and cannot feel theocratic by nature. And real Christians know that only Christ can establish a successful theocracy anyways when He comes back to re-claim His kingdom. No human can accomplish that. And Scripturally sound persons like Bachmann I’m sure knows this. Throckmorton’s is a homosexual activist now who thinks or believes he is now smarter than GOD…no more, no less.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What you’re saying  looks like English but doesn’t make any sense.