Stocking stuffers

Defining dominionism down: Good’s Kristin Rawls reports on a nice, attractive young couple who are helping to give dominionism a nicer, more attractive face.

They’d prefer we don’t say “dominionism,” though, because in their ideal of a Christian America governed by biblical laws privileging Christianity, no one would be forced to convert:

The Mitchells practice a form of politicized conservative Christianity that most observers would call dominionism. Libertarian-leaning supporters of state’s rights, they would like to see government reconstructed from the ground up under “Christian laws” such as the abolition of abortion. But they are reluctant to call themselves dominionists, noting that they do not support “compulsory conversion” to Christianity.

Coffee With Jesus: The Top Ten News Stories of the Year

Ed Brayton: “Bill Donohue Has Momentary Lapse of Insanity

Grace at Are Women Human?: “Mark Driscoll Apologism Bingo

This is why I didn’t want to be seen reading that Bob Larson book: “Bolivian police say brother and sister killed sibling in attempted exorcism

Dave Bazan and David Dark: “Unsettled Questions

Coleman Glenn: “The Seventh Blind Man of Indostan

American Buddhist: Defining our terms.

James F. McGrath: “Answers in Racketeering (Does Ken Ham Think Noah Was a Millionaire?)

Note to David Barton: Some people can pull off the black T-shirt-and-leather-jacket look. You are not one of those people. This is partly due to your haircut and mostly due to your constantly lying about everything.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

LBCF, No. 110: 'Sexiest Man Alive'
'Fantastic,' 'terrific' ways to tell when Trump is bluffing
White evangelicals cannot allow themselves to understand miscarriage
Many's the time I've been mistaken
  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I never thought Bill Donohue would say something like that.  I wish he could generalize it a bit more, but at least he has some empathy.  We can build off of that, I hope.  

    And Mark Driscoll is stilled owed an appointment with my fists.  Someday, I hope he comes to collect.  In the meantime, the cell in the rightmost column of the second-to-bottom row most definitely would not make me comfortable with any of his sermons.  

  • Alicia

    What’s really sad is that I’m genuinely impressed that a major conservative figure would go on the record as acknowledging that most American Muslims are not terrorists. On one hand, this is a significant step forward; on the other hand, we really should have passed this stage about 400 years ago.

    Oh, well. Baby steps…

    But they are reluctant to call themselves dominionists, noting that they do not support “compulsory conversion” to Christianity.

    That’s reasonable. In their ideal world, non-Christians would remain as a comfortably gooey layer of permanent underclass, whose role it will be to deflect criticism from the Christianist government by giving the underprivileged masses someone that they can look down upon. No matter how bad things get under an iron-fisted theocracy, you’re still better than those pagans!

    (And when I say ‘iron-fisted’, I mean it; according to the article, the husband supported a legislative bill in Uganda that called for the execution (well, murder, let’s be honest) of homosexuals. Does anyone think that, if they could, they wouldn’t try something similar here?)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    (And when I say ‘iron-fisted’, I mean it; according to the article, the husband supported a legislative bill in Uganda that called for the execution (well, murder, let’s be honest) of homosexuals. Does anyone think that, if they could, they wouldn’t try something similar here?)

    Ugh, the Uganda homophobia is one of those things that I really should not be commenting on.  It is the kind of thing that sets my blood boiling and gets me calling for “fair turnabout” in ways that no one of reasonable mind wants to hear about.  

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    Grace is a tremendous resource for me to share with some of my Seattle area friends who are closely tied down with the apologists.

  • cubicle mouse

    That dominionist couple gave me a serious case of the willies!

  • Anonymous

    Libertarian dominionists? Those words do not mean what you appear to think you mean…

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    Libertarian dominionists? Those words do not mean what you appear to think you mean…

    Lisa Simpson: I know those words. They don’t go together.

  • Tonio

    Libertarian and Dominionst go together only in the sense that adherents of both want government to control people who aren’t like them.

  • Anonymous

    You mean Libertarian-wannabies who vote Republican, whose depth of understanding of the philosophy is less taxes.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Sure, no one will be “forced” to convert. They’ll just face unrelenting legal, economic, and social discrimination and be consigned to the margins of society if they don’t. (After all, if I tell you that from now on whenever I see you I’m going run right at you while wildly swinging my fists, I didn’t hit you so much as you let yourself get hit, right? ) And people that do choose to convert rather than face such (justly deserved) hardship would never be treated as anything less than full-and-equal Christians. In any case, there certainly won’t be any conflict a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War “>among Christians as to what a Christian country would look like

  • Magic_Cracker

    Blurg. Can’t edit for some reason. Should have proofread better.

  • Anonymous

    (And when I say ‘iron-fisted’, I mean it; according to the article, the husband supported a legislative bill in Uganda that called for the execution (well, murder, let’s be honest) of homosexuals. Does anyone think that, if they could, they wouldn’t try something similar here?

    Heck, they’ve tried an end-run around that — the “Gay Panic” so-called Defense, wherein it is argued that the natural, instinctive response of a red-blooded, non-homo American male to a perceived homosexual advance is the murder the hell out of the perceived homosexual.

  • Alicia

    Ugh, I forgot about that. At least the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that it pretty much never actually works (outside of New Zealand, apparently): the first guy who tried it was ended up being executed.

    If a similar version of the Uganda bill gets proposed here, it will probably take the form of that. No death penalty for homosexuality, but the compromising or removal of legal protections for LBGT persons while steadily chipping away at their civil rights so that the maniacs who prey on them will know that they have little to fear.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a troll over at Charlie Pierces Esquire Blog that maintains that 99% of us normals share his visceral disgust at the thought of two dudes groping each other. He’s so close to the gay panic defense.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I actually have a friend who went through a really combative phase with his homosexuality, where he brought a friend to our weekly Babylon Five watching/RPG session and made out with him the whole night basically to test our homophobia. It made me uncomfortable in exactly the same way all real-life PDAs do. 

  • FangsFirst

    Guh. I don’t want to watch a heterosexual couple make out for a whole night, either.

    Two guys (or women) could be a novelty for a bit, at least. But that would wear thin pretty quickly.

    Especially if I was trying to watch B5 or play an RPG for crying out loud.

    “You come to a crossroads. There is a man with crazed eyes and a beard, who seems to be on the verge of running in terror at the sight of your party.”
    “We make out at him. Until he runs away. Then we keep making–‘scuse me, talking too long.” *making out noises*

    Though…actually… if they made out to cover up Claudia Christian’s atrocious “acting,” maybe it would work out.

  • Anonymous

    Ah…I wasn’t logged in. That’s why I couldn’t edit.

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

    Gay panic? I just never can believe that such a piece of ridiculous sophistry could pass legal muster.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I have a pretty terrible memory, but I seem to recall a gay panic defense working in my hometown of super-liberal Honolulu within my lifetime. 

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

    I have a pretty terrible memory, but I seem to recall a gay panic
    defense working in my hometown of super-liberal Honolulu within my
    lifetime.

    *BOOM* *REVERB*

    *rubs forehead, observes desk still shaking from the contact*

    X-C

  • Anonymous

    Okay, the Mitchells are some of the most frightening villains I’ve ever met or read about. I’m serious.  They are the banality of evil personified. Nice, smiling, probably recycle and they dream, and work for, a future that’s a hideous mix of 1984, The Handmaid’s Tale, Salem colony with Apple stores in other words. I might actually start believing in god or magic again to pray and or cast protection spells to keep them from their goals, gah, I think I’ll be sleeping with the lights on tonight. 

  • Anonymous

    I’m impressed to how the Mitchell’s politics combine the worst of religious fundementalism and libertarism. So no social safety net, and personal freedom in things like who you marry. Plus a big smoke screen of Randroids is “private charity can take care of it!” and the Mitchells invalidate that with the very clear picture that their version of Christianity isn’t about to dirty its hands in such Socialist filth as the teachings of Jesus. 

  • guest

    You have to remember that to them, things like being poor, gay, or non-Christian are choices, made knowingly and willingly every day. They could change any of those in a matter of days with some hard work and the Church’s help, but they choose not to. That makes them evil, because they are tacitly turning their back on Jesus by virtue of choosing to be poor or gay.

    In regards to LoneWolf343, if a woman masturbates, is that a homosexual act too?

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    their version of Christianity isn’t about to dirty its hands in such Socialist filth as the teachings of Jesus.

    So it’s really just theocracy with all the good parts taken out?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    So it’s really just theocracy with all the good parts taken out?

    Pretty much, yeah.  I get the impression the only reason people like that are so hysterical about the ‘imminent threat’ of Shari’a Law in the USA is because they desperately want to establish THEIR brand’s theocracy _first_.

  • http://mordicai.livejournal.com Mordicai

    This is in general the problem I have with people calling themselves “libertarian.”  Generally, they seem to be saying “people should be allowed to do whatever it is I want to do!”  Especially when “whatever it is” is “whatever wealthy white straight men want to do.”

  • Anonymous

    And as it is the Holiday Season, have a cheery stocking stuffer in the form a picture of Johnny Cash, his daughter and granddaughter, and Big Bird, and remember that all winters end, http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn309/Juniper1983/bigcash.jpg

  • Anonymous

    “First, masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on homosexuality [sic] activity, particularly if he’s watching himself in a mirror and being turned on by his own male body.”
    What the fuck am I reading?

  • Alicia

    I don’t know. What link is that from?

    I don’t really understand why it matters if his wife is in the room. I mean, let’s say she’s on the computer playing Plants vs. Zombies and he’s laying in bed masturbating — is that really closer to “homosexuality activity” than if she was downstairs in the living room or out in the garden or something?

  • FangsFirst

    I don’t really understand why it matters if his wife is in the room. I
    mean, let’s say she’s on the computer playing Plants vs. Zombies and
    he’s laying in bed masturbating — is that really closer to
    “homosexuality activity” than if she was downstairs in the living room
    or out in the garden or something?

    Yes, but only because it’s Plants vs. Zombies.

  • Lori

    The quote is from the Mark Driscoll Apologism article. As the author points out, the man clearly has some issues.

    I will give Driscoll a teeny, tiny bit of credit for acknowledging that there’s more to couple sex than PIV. Sadly, that’s still rare enough in some conservative circles that I feel compelled to acknowledge it. The rest of it is stupid and bigoted and did I mention, totally stupid? Driscoll needs to stop talking in public and people need to stop listening to him.

  • Anonymous

    It was from the Apologism Bingo link. That may be one of most baffling things I have ever read.

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    What the fuck am I reading?

    The all-too-descript writings of the Most Honorable Right Reverend Sir Pastor Mark Driscobulent?

  • Albanaeon

    Wow, I have found my anti-Masters.  The Mitchell’s are very much like my Kung-Fu Elder Masters; friendly, personable, open people, except on the very far end of the political spectrum.  They even resemble younger versions of them.  I am seriously creeped out…

  • http://twitter.com/graceishuman Grace

    Eeep! Thanks so much for the link, Fred! So exciting to be linked from a blog I’ve been reading for years and consider a model to aspire to.

    Kristin Rawl did an amazing job writing a nuanced profile that doesn’t mince words about the dangerous beliefs of dominionists, but also doesn’t pretend as though dominionists are obvious scary monsters. The hyper conservative communities I grew up in are full of people who in one-on-one interaction are often polite, affable, and extremely generous with their time and energy…but believe absolutely horrible things when it comes to politics and ideology.

  • WingedBeast

    In response to the Mitchels, I want to note that the Spanish Inquisition did not act in order to enforce conversion, but rather to weed out false conversion or other forms of heresy.  If, for whatever reason, you were once Jewish or Muslim and you converted to Christianity, then, again for whatever reason, people suspect that you are still practicing Judaism or Islam, well, that’s where the tortures come in.

    So, while the Mitchels won’t be forcing conversion, per se, merely making it so that being openly nonChristian makes you a second class citizenship in economic, social, and legal terms, how will they deal with people who pretend to convert in order to avoid that second class citizenship?

    What’s more, how would they garuntee that they aren’t among those suspected of pretending?

    Everybody needs to know that there is no magic line.  Whatever can be done to one person can be done to you.  If race, creed, religion, sexuality, sex, gender identity can be used as an excuse to do horrible wrong to one person, it can be done as an excuse to do horrible wrong unto you.

    As for Mr. Donahue siding with the “American Muslim” reality show… wow, some people do have limits.  Is it a limit of conscience or is it a limit of how extreme he thinks he can be before he’s actually sacrificing even his own far right audience?  We may never know.  But, there is a line that won’t be crossed.  Halleluya.

  • Tonio

    Actually the Mitchells are defining dominionism up, sort of how (in the words of Chris Rock) one has to shoot Medgar Evers to be a racist.

  • Anonymous

    Yunnah kuhunna, that Mitchell guy is a gem. I was kind of expecting the pro-“life” and the anti-gay stuff, but his feminist mother being cursed with mental illness after she left his abusive father? The fetishization of homelessness? Ladies, gents, and other distinguished persons, we have a brand-new last-second nominee for Douchecanoe of the Year! Bonus points for evading the question of how he treats his wife.

  • Anonymous

    “Why would he have married me if he didn’t value me?”
    “Because you’re smoking hot!”

    The fact that he has an answer at all to that question speaks volumes.

  • Dan W

    Well, the Mitchells worry and creep me out a lot. And as others have said, they may not support compulsory conversion of non-Christians, but their views would still make life very difficult for anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. Non RTCs would be second-class citizens if they had their way.

    Also, Bill Donahue acting like a rational human being? How is that possible?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=581585394 Nicholas Kapur

    Even though you’re dismissing the importance of their lack of support for “compulsory conversion,” you’re still giving it too much credibility. The Mitchells don’t support compulsory conversion in the same sense that Hitler didn’t support converting Jews.

    …And I do not make that comparison lightly. I am literally saying that if the Mitchells rose in power to run the country, the rest of us would be systematically exterminated, barring an invasion of the United States by other powers.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    You may be giving them too much credit — they’re a nasty bunch but also venial. WHat fun would it be for them to have power without a permanent formalized underclass to lord it over?

  • P J Evans

    They’d want to exterminate the non-Christians and QUILTBAG people; everyone else gets to convert or be a second-class citizen.

  • Anonymous

    As soon as it becomes “open season” on Wiccans, I’m moving to Canada.  I prefer freezing-cold winters to a life in hiding.

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

    If you don’t mind smaller communities, Vancouver Island has mild winters by Canadian standards, and is more affordable than Vancouver and environs.

  • Anonymous

    Tempting, but I’ve already got kin in Ontario.  They can’t say no to a refugee, right? :P

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5V7WB5LWONXO22R6D4CYEZGYFE Alan

    The article on the Dominionist couple sounded like a scene from “American Psycho 3: Jesus Loves You … To Death.”

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

     
    From the not-really-dominionists-don’t-worry article:

    She describes her politics as “Ron Paul-Christian,” and he says he would never support Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey in national politics because his obesity reflects a “character flaw.”

    Wow. It’s pretty rare for it to take just one sentence for me to lose any respect for someone’s political views, but there you go.

  • Demonhype

    My father grew up on the other side of the Iron Curtain and saw the Soviets up close.  Lived under their occupational rule.  And you know what?  Under the Soviets, being religious was allowed, but it made you a “second class citizenship in economic, social, and legal terms”.

    I wonder if the Mitchells would consider that “enforced deconversion” or “persecution” or “oppression”?  Probably.  After all, it’s only bad when it’s being done to you, not when it’s being done to people you don’t like.

  • Anonymous

    Just passing through to wish everybody a good time celebrating whatever you’re celebrating at this season. And a happy new year.

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    Speaking of Bully Driscoll

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

    Coleman Glenn: “The Seventh Blind Man of Indostan”

    That one would be a lot more clever and interesting if Carl Sagan didn’t already have a response

  • Nathaniel

    Ya know, if you have to clarify that stating that you have a “violent disagreement” with someone, you don’t actually have violent intent towards that person, you are probably doing something wrong. Or have the wrong friends.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You know, we do not tolerate bullying of our children on the school yard. Why do we tolerate it among adults? Why is there no legal authority to appeal to that can force bullies to behave whether they are inclined to obey or not?

    Because when there is no authority that can deal with a bully, the only way to deal with a bully is to cow them through a direct application of force, and would hazard to guess that society really does not want that to have to happen…

  • Rikalous

    You know, we do not tolerate bullying of our children on the school
    yard. Why do we tolerate it among adults? Why is there no legal
    authority to appeal to that can force bullies to behave whether they are
    inclined to obey or not?

    Because there isn’t any easily identifiable class of people as far above bullying adults as adults are above bullying children. So we make do as best we can with things like laws about harassment which hopefully stay on the tightrope of powerful enough to solve the problem without being so powerful they get turned into the new problem by the unscrupulous.

  • Anonymous

    I had an email exchange with Molotov Mitchell on his Facebook page — that is, until he banned me for pointing out some lies (er, I mean discrepancies) in his account of the Uganda bill.  He’s a twisted thinker, as I recount here: 
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/the-argument-ex-contradictio

    Also, he’s on record as loving his gay friends.  Add that to his support for executing gays, and you’ve got a man whose love for his gay friends is so great he wants to see them dead and in Hell.
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/loving-gays-so-much-you-want-to-send-them-to-hell 

    (Hope you don’t mind me shilling my blog in the comments section!)

  • Anonymous

    Rob! :D  I’ve enjoyed your blog! (Didn’t expect you to comment here, though I suppose a lot of progressive bloggers pass through here at some time or another.)

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    If people are going to be converting to Christianity, how about the Mitchells do it first?

  • Kat Walker

    “She describes her politics as “Ron Paul-Christian [..]”

    In other words, not actually Christian.  Seriously Paulbots, just break off and form your own country already, WE DON’T WANT YOU.

    “I’m sick of white liberals trying to dictate the way that black people live in other countries.”

    But it’s apparently the job of white conservatives to encourage the murder of black people in other countries?  Oh, okay.

    That couple reminds me of a younger version of Vox Day and his wife Spacebunny.  He even works at WND and has a douchey nickname, too. 

    The only difference is Vox is content with being a grumpy, ineffectual armchair bigot with a small legion of online crazies to stroke his ego, while Molotov actually has charisma and seems like he wants to make a career out of being a cult leader.  Also, his wife seems to be able to semi-function in decent society whereas Spacebunny regurgitates such insipid, foul word vomit on a regular basis that I honestly think she’s also mentally ill. 

    Maybe she used to be a feminist and God is punishing her? 

  • Anonymous

    For those of who are not from the US – is there a difference between dominionism, and reconstructionism ?

    (There used to be a site with plenty of links to what people like Rushdoony *et al.* said (their version of ?) dominionism involved: said links are now unfortunately dead.)

    Rushdoony’s Dominionism was strongly Calvinist; the intention, AFAI understand it, is to revive the Law of Moses in modified form & to abolish the Constitution. Think Calvinist Sharia law. The Mitchells do not seem to be intending anything like as drastic – they sound as if they are social conservatives who would like something resembling a modernised US Protestant form of mediaeval society.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    I always thought that Reconstructionism was a very liberal form of Judaism, while Dominionism is close to Christianity (the Christian equivalent of the Islamic Courts movement, or something like Wahhabism). I don’t think it’s possible to set up a medieval society operating under the Law of Moses that doesn’t involve abolishing the Constitution.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the quick reply :) The abolition of the Constitution by this group is intended.

    This page on the Constitution: http://ecclesia.org/truth/constitution.html

    is from a site that includes a page with excerpts from Rushdoony:

    http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html

    Rather interestingly, the notion that the US is meant is to be a Christian country is affirmed, but is *not* based on the supposed intentions of the Founding Fathers. This is worlds away from the Mormon belief that the Constitution is Divinely inspired.