Good solid pro-family evangelical Southern Baptists

Remember when we were told that Dominion Theology is just a myth?

Well here’s a new book outlining how the Bible — read “literally,” of course — should be the basis for all civil law. It’s called God’s Law: The Only Political Solution and it’s by Charlie Fuqua.

Charlie Fuqua is an anti-abortion Southern Baptist and, therefore, a good evangelical.

Fuqua says he’s just reading the Bible like any good Christian should, and that he wants American law to reflect God’s law. You know, like overturning Roe v. Wade, reinstating school prayer, expelling all Muslims from the country, abolishing the minimum wage, gold-buggery, and executing any prisoner who is not “rehabilitated in two years.” And, of course, Charlie Fuqua believes that Global Warming is a hoax and that Barack Obama is a Muslim Communist.

He also cites the book of Deuteronomy to propose “the death penalty for rebellious children.” If a rebellious child is “permanently removed from society,” Fuqua says, “that gives an example to all other children” and “would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.”

Oh, and one other thing you should know about Charlie Fuqua: he is the Republican candidate for state representative in the 72nd District in Arkansas.

So a full-blown Dominionist/Reconstructionist can get the Republican nomination for statewide office in Arkansas? Yep. Fuqua has previously served in the state legislature, and he’s running to reclaim his seat there.

Fuqua’s book and outspoken advocacy of theocracy, however, have made things uncomfortable for the Arkansas Republican Party. The party chairman recently announced that it will stop providing campaign funds for Fuqua and for two other candidates — incumbent legislators Rep. John Hubbard and Rep. Loy Mauch.

Mauch, who represents the 26th District, is a notorious Neo-Confederate who has a history of defending slavery, praising John Wilkes Booth, and railing against Abraham Lincoln as a “war criminal.”

Hubbard recently published a book of his own, titled Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative, in which he wrote that slavery was “a blessing in disguise” for black people, because it was better than life in Africa.

Hubbard has angrily claimed the words of his book are being taken out of context. He emailed a longer excerpt to the local ABC affiliate to prove this claim. The longer excerpt just makes him look even worse. (And that doesn’t even include the part where he criticizes school integration for dragging down the white kids.)

All three of these men, by the way, are Southern Baptists — just like Denny Burk. They’re good “convictional” evangelicals — just like Denny Burk.

But while Denny Burk is eager to spend his days questioning the “convictional” validity of which women may and may not be officially recognized (by him) as real, true evangelicals, guys like Fuqua, Hubbard and Mauch get a pass because, you know, they’re anti-gay and anti-abortion and therefore good evangelicals.

If you want a good theological critique of Charlie Fuqua’s Dominionism or the Neo-Confederate nonsense of Hubbard and Mauch, don’t look to the Southern Baptist Vatican in Louisville — for the SBC, any conservative Republican will always be an evangelical in good standing.

But if you are looking for a theological response to Fuqua, the best one I’ve seen is from Ari Kohen:

In brief, here is my plea to people like Charlie Fuqua:

Stop cherry-picking the Torah to justify all of the terrible things you want people to do to one another; Jews don’t believe that things like this are mandated by the Torah and it’s our book.

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    Ah, yes.  Sharia law, the American Taliban version.

  • Termudgeon

    And obviously,  jubilee. Right?

  • christopher_young

    Given the American (and British) habit of anglicising any names of non Anglo-Saxon origin, I’m assuming that Fuqua is pronounced Fucker.

    Honestly, I had thought that these people had exhausted their power to shock me, but he’s managed it. Do you suppose he really believes this shit or does he just think he believes it?

  • Magic_Cracker

    No, jubilee got thrown out with the kosher rules, donchaknow?

  • Jeff Weskamp

    The scariest part of the whole article:

    This asshole actually served as a *state representative!!!*

    And of course the Dominionists reject the idea of the Jubilee.  It would interfere with the sacred practice of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which as we all know is the way of the angels.

    But I would like for a Dominionist to show me the book, chapter, and verse that condemns the idea of a minimum wage.  Or global warming.  It reminds of that old saying, “A sure sign that you’ve made your God in your own image is when He hates all the same things you hate.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Evans/100000619020207 David Evans

    Ari Kohen is of course right to point out the Jews’ long history of interpreting their scriptures. Indeed, I am in awe of their skills:

    “Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) states that the child is not considered liable until he has stolen his father’s property in order to acquire a tartimar of meat to eat, and a log of Italian wine to drink.”

    How did they get that, from a book written when Italy hadn’t been invented?  

  • VMink

    Speaking as a writer who sometimes delves into religious theocratic dystopias, I gotta admit I *really* like the cover to his book.  It’s so many flavors of not-even-merely-implied symbolism, awesome grist for my mill.  It’s a symbol that looks like it’s a dozen levels of horrifying, and perfect for a nation of jackbooted dominionist villains (even if they’re on Mars.)  He’d probably mind terribly if I used it in my writing, but I think I can give the visual impression of it without being explicit.

    (If that isn’t the flag of Gilead, then it should be.)

    (I can only be this flip because the guy is an utter tool and this will haunt him the rest of his days, and is not likely to win election.)

  • Becca Stareyes

    So, if I was raised by an atheist father and was disobeying Dad and sneaking off to attend church services*, would I be executed by Fuqua’s rules?  Or does it not count because by Fuqua’s rules, all non-Christians** would be booted from Jesusland with the Muslims?

    But, stars, what is wrong with people?

    * Actually my parents didn’t really care what religion, if any, I professed to believe and probably would have been happy that teenaged me was getting out of bed on Sundays before noon.

    ** Presumably using the ‘No true Scotsman’ definition of ‘agrees with my version of the religion’. 

  • Hawker40

    But since they know longer call themselves Dominionists, they aren’t Dominionists, therefore Fred is worried about nothing.

    For Sale: Bridge, connects Brooklyn to Manhatten, Cheap.

  • http://harmfulguy.livejournal.com/ harmfulguy

    Sounds like Fuqua is in favor of abortion after all — from the 4th until the 75th trimester, at least.

  • Carstonio

     At the risk of Godwinning the thread, if that cover was on a novel, I would expect the opening scene to be gays wearing pink triangles being herded into railroad freight cars.

  • The_L1985

     You’re thinking of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures, a.k.a the Old Testament).  That’s the Talmud, i.e., the commentary, which is still being written to this day.

  • http://twitter.com/jclor jclor

    Thanks to the half-rate typesetting on the cover of Mr. Fuqua’s book, I now have a craving for some good old Southern barbecue with a side of “godslaw”.

    It is also difficult not to apply the “serial killers and other psychopaths have one dead eye” rule to the author’s photo.  It’s almost as though his face is trying to warn the world about the skewed mentality housed within.

  • The_L1985

     I like the flag, too.  It very handily gives the impression of being knee-deep in blood, which is a very accurate description of America under his draconian interpretation of “Biblical” law.

  • rizzo

    Fuqua, eh?  Sounds like some kind of..A-Rab name to me.  I wouldn’t trust ‘em, boys.

  • Carstonio

    When I first read the Fuqua story, I doubted that it was anything but a hoax. The Onion should just close up shop now.

    This paragraph by Burk deserves some deconstruction:

    The article doesn’t include much of a discussion about differences
    among evangelicals about gender roles. Even though there are both complementarians and egalitarians on the list, the article seems to assume an egalitarian framework. In general, it regards high-achieving women excelling in their respective fields as something to be celebrated. Make no mistake, everyone celebrates women excelling in roles that the scripture commends, but egalitarians continue to disagree with complementarians about what those roles are. In short, the report highlights the influencers without trying to sort out the differences that complementarians and egalitarians have over these issues

    Berk isn’t exactly saying that egalitarianism is bad, but he does imply that there’s a legitimate argument against it. As if celebrating women who excel in their fields was something on which reasonable people can have valid differences of opinion. More importantly, he doesn’t acknowledge that “complementarianism” is anti-egalitarianism. There shouldn’t be roles in society commended for either sex, by scripture or by anything else. In a truly just society, people of both sexes are free to determine what roles they wish to play, instead of having roles determined by law or custom or social norm.

  • Worthless Beast

    And here I was feeling really juvinile wondering when people were going to start making fun of the guy’s NAME. 

    That Fuqua!  Who would vote for that Fuqua! You’d have to be out of your mind to listen to that mother-Fuqua!  

  • http://mostboringradical.tumblr.com/ Lori

    That’s what I was thinking, too.  We should probably demand to see his birth certificate.

  • Carstonio

     I submit for your edification a much more laudatory Fuqua, one I respect for his contributions to American rhythm and blues:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Fuqua

  • Worthless Beast

    Too lazy to look it up, but when reading some of the more shocking things in ye olde Bible… I remember coming across the “stone the rebellious son” law only to read a footnone in my heavily annotated NIV that “That, while on the books, there is no historical evidenced that it was ever enforced.”  I still didn’t know whether to be relieved or glad my bratty self was born in a different era.  I figure people who actually study this stuff or are well-informed Jewish would know better about this…

    As it is, I wonder if some of the things Fundie-Dominist types want to “bring back” never really existed…

    I used to love reading books as a kid of Wacky Laws – U.S. Laws that were put on the books in Old West days and such that never got taken off that no one pays attention to anymore.  I’m pretty sure you won’t be arrested for wearing a swimsuit in the afternoon in Tuscon, AZ. Slavery wasn’t *officially* abolished in Arkansas or somewhere until the modern day because of some lawbook everyone forgot about…  I think the title of one of those books was “Don’t Send Mice Through the Mail!” or something like that (something that stands as a good anti-animal cruelty law, but makes one go WTF becuase who would be dumb enough to do that)?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687121933 Carrie Looney

    Fuqua’s commentary reminds me of:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    True.

    It is perhaps also worth noting that the Talmud is full of explicit contradictions, as various contributors disagree with earlier contributors. So while certain consensus views on interpretation are taken as traditionally binding, none of it is understood to be infallible.

  • Mark Z.

    I was thinking it sounds like some kind of Chinese squash.

  • wirthdr

    God Slaw == Shredded Bible

  • Richard Hershberger

    Y’all have missed the best part:  the guy lists his J.D. on the book cover.  What a dick!

  • CharityB

     

    As it is, I wonder if some of the things Fundie-Dominist types want to “bring back” never really existed…

    Most of these people live in a fictional past, largely derived from 1950s sitcoms as well as their most pornographic fantasies about how much easier it was to hurt people who weren’t like them back then.

  • Beleester

    It was deliberately made so specific that it could never be enforced. But if you’re wondering about the scriptural source, it’s because when the parents officialy bring their son out for stoning they have to say “he is a glutton and a drunkard and does not listen to us…” and so on. So the rabbis asked “how much does it take before you can call him a drunkard? How much does he have to disobey before he’s officially disobedient?

    And so they stacked up all these legal questions so the law could never be used.

    I don’t know where the “Italian wine” bit comes from, though. I haven’t heard that one.

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

     Also, it’s not really “italian wine”. It’s “a log (by Italian, i.e. Roman, measure) of wine”. A log of wine is roughly half a liter, apparently.

    Like much of the Talmud, this law dates to the Roman Empire.

  • gocart mozart

    It rymes with Muck-You

  • gocart mozart

    and the whole ‘blessed are the poor” thing also.

  • http://pasttensepresentprogressive.blogspot.com/ Latebloomer

    This article did not surprise me at all, since I grew up in Christian Patriarchy circles where the authority of the parents (particularly the father) was basically absolute, where rebellion can be something as simple as expressing a different opinion or having a facial expression of displeasure.  The pastor of my family’s church wrote a parenting book (“Child Training Tips” by Reb Bradley) where he referred to that OT law positively, although he at least decided that it was part of Israel’s civil law, thus not applicable today.  

    If anyone is interested, I reviewed the book in several posts; here’s the most relevant one: http://pasttensepresentprogressive.blogspot.com/2012/09/biblical-parenting-criticism-3-parent.html  

  • gocart mozart

    If you translate his title into Arabic, it would be “Sharia”.  Literally.

  • veejayem

    I raise my glass to Ari Cohen, may his shadow never grow less (hey, I like my food). As for Fuqua ~ ah, the fun I could have with that name, had Shakesville not (almost) cured me of such base impulses ~ like too many people, he confuses “respect” with “fear”.

  • veejayem

    We still have some old laws cluttering up the statutes in Britain too. It seems rather a shame when they get cleared out. I don’t think I’m required  to practise with the long-bow nowadays ~ just as well, the target would be the only thing that was safe ~ and I am no longer free to do nasty things to any hapless Welshman that crosses the border.

  • veejayem

    People like Fuqua practically jump up and down shotuing, “Godwin me! Godwin me!” Sometimes you just have to oblige them.

  • gocart mozart

    From an Amazon 5* review:

    “As a former heathen and fornicator, I found myself having four children outside
    of marriage. I did not think too much of this fact when I was heathenly
    fornicating away, but then one day, I was secreted away by a group of religious
    freedom fighters.”

    Heh. 

  • Golgaronok

    “If you translate his title into Arabic, it would be “Sharia”.  Literally.”

    Picking nits here, but no, not literally. The Arabic word shares a root (shin-ra-ayn) with the word for “street/road”; there’s no literal translation (which is why it’s been adopted as a loan word), but “way” or “path” comes close.

    The Arabic for “law”, OTOH, is حقوق (ha-qaf-waw-qaf, if that’s not displaying correctly; approximate pronunciation ‘Huquuq’ or ‘who kook’), and we all know the equivalent of ‘God’.

  • http://snarkthebold.blogspot.com/ Edo

     If I can interject for a moment:

    Shari’a law is NOT The Very Final And Authoritative Social Vision of
    Allah SWT, and doesn’t pretend to be, because the direct commandments of
    the Qur’an are nowhere near as comprehensive as Mosaic law. (Off the
    top of my head, it doesn’t say anything about contract law, which
    matters because marriage is treated as a subset of
    contract law.) IIRC, shari’a law is a certain nucleus of direct Qur’anic
    commandments (most infamously the hudud ordinances,
    i.e. “the gory parts you already know about”), the ahadith, commentary
    and criticism on the ahadith, and a few centuries of legal-philosophical
    tradition, interacting with the common law of whatever came before it. The Sunni world distinguishes four schools of it, and pretty much every branch of the Shi’i sectarian family tree has its own.

    The comparison is fair ONLY because the people who most loudly call for shari’a, like the Dominionists, don’t usually mean (or care about) stuff like, say, pre-Westernization contract law. Their focus is primarily on the gory parts.

  • Jurgan

    No, I’m pretty sure the Dominionist utopia considers apostasy to be a capital crime as well, so your parents would have been eliminated long before that became an issue.

  • Jurgan

    His what?  Jesus Doctorate?  I’ve never heard of this.

  • Jurgan

    Given that Islam is an Abrahamic religion, how much of the Torah is accepted as canonical by Muslims?  If I read the Quran, would it start with the same stuff I read in the Bible? Genuinely curious here.

  • AnonymousSam

    Fuqua? I hardly Noah!

  • Shira Coffee

    I have a serious questions. Instead of trying to preach the gospel to the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, why don’t Christians of goodwill try to preach it to the Southern Baptists?

  • VMink

    Juris Doctorate.  Basically, he’s studied law, he has a doctorate in the science of law, but he is not a member of any state bar.  The equivalent would be if someone graduated medical school with a doctorate in medicine, but was not licensed to “be” a medical doctor.

  • LL

    It’s sad that the jibber jabber of these idiots doesn’t even sound particularly notable to me. 

    I mean, I’ve heard all this shit before from other idiots, except possibly the bit about executing people who aren’t “rehabilitated” after 2 years in prison, that must be a new entry on the nutjob hit parade. They keep adding stuff, it’s getting really hard to keep track. The Venn diagram of the various positions of the various nutjob Republican constituencies is two circles, one labeled “Obviously Stupid Shit Only an Extremely Stupid Person Would Think” and the other labeled “Public Statements by Republican Politicians,” and the two circles would almost perfectly overlap, showing, basically, just one circle with a tiny sliver containing the opinions of the handful of Republican politicians who don’t seem to be trying to catch the express train back to 1650. I don’t know what could possibly be in that sliver. Maybe something about the electrical grid. Or other infrastructure, you know, boring stuff that doesn’t involve vaginas or gay people. 

    If I didn’t know how terminally stupid people actually can be, I’d think all of these candidates are just fucking with us, running a deliberately, obviously offensive campaign because they’re trying to win a bet. If I imagine them getting drunk in a bar and betting a friend a year’s worth of beer that they can get elected to some kind of public office after saying shit so pants-on-head idiotic that nobody could possibly take it seriously, it seems funny, not alarming. Then I sleep better at night. 

     

  • Azraelmacool

    If I remember my Qu’ran properly, basically all of the Torah is still canonical for Islam. I remember in the part about dietary restrictions, while slightly different than kosher, it also says that its cool if its prepared kosher instead. I think its like a follow Torah unless its directly contradicted by the Qu’ran kinda thing. But its been a while since I read it, and I didn’t finish, so, I could be wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Evans/100000619020207 David Evans

    I’m aware that the commentary is still being written. I question what the writers could have found in the Tanakh that would have led them to specify Italian wine.

  • J_Enigma32

    “Muslim problem.”

    Wanna bet his *ideal* solution is probably a little more in depth and… thorough, shall we say… than exporting them to Madagascar?

    Jesus fucking Christ. These people auto-Godwin.

  • Joshua

    Remember, kids, it’s all fun and games until someone commits genocide.

  • Ben English

    I can’t believe I haven’t seen a single Charlie Fuquad joke yet.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X