I know this is pretty heavy stuff, so I hope you’ll bear with me. As always, if spirituality is not your thing, then this post is not for you, but if you’re in to exploring, then stick with me…
As you know, I recently went back to the Presbyterian Church that I was baptized and raised in along with my parents and siblings. I was “uninvited” in so many words by a woman who told me they were separating themselves from the National Presbyterian Church because they were “becoming too Liberal.” Specifically, they did not like that the Presbyterian Church divested itself from holdings in Caterpillar, among other corporations because of their hand in the destruction of Palestinians by the Israelis. I told her that was one of the reasons that I had come back –that I felt the same way about owning stocks in corporations that were either hurting others (like sweatshops) or allowing others to hurt other folks (like Caterpillar). I did not feel this is what Jesus would do, therefore, I did not want to be a part of it.
I also read that members of the Presbyterian church in San Francisco, along with Jewish and other faiths had surrounded a mosque so that Muslims could pray in peace. She didn’t give me a chance to even talk about it. She was done with me.
When I thought about the people in my church wanting to separate, it was a group of “new” people who did not grow up in my church. But they seem to be the ones at the center of pushing “liberals” out and advocating fundamentalism/evangelical rigidity. They were advocating separation from the national Church. And seriously, I don’t consider myself that much of a liberal – I’m more middle ground than anything, and “left” on some things. Notably, the Presbyterian church is big on the environment. As I’ve blogged about, that is where I got my first appreciation on the environment.
One of the issues of the group that wants to leave the national church was the 2nd Amendment — the national church was against gun ownership. This is one aspect that I thought I’d never go against, but all that I am seeing now with authoritarian dictatorship where those elected are not doing the will of the people, even shutting them out of public meetings on legislation, or to even know what a bill contains, as with TPP, and forcing them to submit to stuff like vaccines against their will…we no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
When someone forcing vaccines onto people, accompanied by armed guards (in the Middle East now but coming to a neighborhood near you)….that’s where I see the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment. Naomi Wolf, whom also loves peace and was against gun ownership, has also had a change of heart in that she, too, has seen that even though we do not want wars, we cannot stop the evil around us and have a right to defend ourselves. As far as the rest of what the evangelicals objected against, I do not know. I asked a childhood friend what else they objected to, and she said she’d send me a copy, but did not. I imagine the bullies got to her and shut her down.
So…when I thought about what was done to me after my divorce some twenty years ago, and how several members of this church helped my ex and his family try to destroy me (not exaggerating)…and how those same members are participating in trying to destroy the Presbyterian Church from within…to go against Jesus’ teachings and his message…I began to wonder if this was just a local issue or whether this was something bigger.
At the Presbyterian Church’s assembly last year, the institute helped block a policy statement that said whether parents were single or gay made no difference to the moral status of a family, and in the process it won the appointment of one of its staff members to a committee to rewrite the policy for this year’s meeting.
This explains a lot — why there was such backlash against me for getting a divorce. And for being a single mom and doing a good job of it. They had to make an example of me and spreading lies about me was their ammo. I actually thought living the life of a nun would protect me. It did not.
As we will see further down, lying about a target is quite acceptable to the dominionists. The ends justifies the means.
I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:
1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.
2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”
3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
“Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions….
“We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
“We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime…
We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths…
We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil.
….when the Lord says, “I never knew you” to those who loudly proclaim their hypocritical religious devotion to him, while ignoring his command to feed the poor and cloth the naked. The biblical passage goes on to say that those about to be cast out ask, “When did we fail to feed the poor and cloth the naked?” The answer is: “In as much as you did it unto the least of these my children—you did it unto me.” When dominionists seek to privatize medicare and social security, and deregulate corporate controls on whole industries, so that the poor and needy become poorer and needier, they have done it to the Lord.
It’s been in the works by this account, for at least a decade. But by my experience, it’s been much longer than that. I would say since the neocons/dominionists came out in force against Senator Frank Church and Senator Birch Bayh, circa 1980. (Actually, as I re-read the first link, she does state that it started back then – circa 1973-74.)
With financing from a handful of conservative donors, including the Scaife family foundations, the Bradley and Olin Foundations and Howard and Roberta Ahmanson’s Fieldstead & Company, the 23-year-old institute is now playing a pivotal role in the biggest battle over the future of American Protestantism since churches split over slavery at the time of the Civil War.
Did your ears perk up at the mention of Bradley Foundation? No? A reminder.
–The Bradley Foundation, headed by Governor Scott Walker’s campaign co-chair Michael Grebe, has underwritten a massive, pro-privatization propaganda campaign, including “a systematic and relentless campaign to turn public opinion against the public school system.”
–Bradley has spent more than $31 million since 2001 supporting organizations promoting education privatization, academics providing favorable pro-privatization pseudo-science, media personalities promoting the privatization agenda, and lobbying organizations advocating for privatization legislation.
–The Bradley-financed campaign has manufactured an education “crisis,” proposed a “solution,” attacked and undermined the ability of potential opponents to block their agenda, and funded aggressive pro-privatization media and lobbying efforts.
–The Bradley-financed Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has manipulated research and pressured a University of Wisconsin professor to downplay results that show school vouchers in a negative light, while highlighting scientifically dubious favorable results.
– See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2013/04/181973/move-over-koch-brothers-bigger-darker-rightwing-funder#sthash.r9EgfABi.dpuf
So you start to see that the destruction of public education IS part of this scheme of taking over complete control of society by a few whom have appointed themselves God.
Here’s another post related to all of this — I know it is a lot to digest, but it’s all coming together now with the destruction of public schools, taxation without representation, forced vaccination (when we now know they have put HIV and God-knows-what-else in them), the criminalization of the poor, and the wealthiest making so much more than everyone else so that even those who are working still need food stamps. Note in my link to my prior post, I had that intuitive thought that they were trying to break up the family. I had no clue why they would want to do that…but with the link to eugenicists, it makes sense — as is prophesied in the Bible about children against parents, siblings against one another, and so on (Mark 13:12).
I took a break from this post, and as yet another commercial for “e-dating” came on the air, I thought about the eugenicists wanting to stop the people they consider deficient — the liberals, feminists, mentally challenged, people who think outside the box, etc., from reproducing, and matching up people they consider above the rest — people like them. Suddenly, e-Harmony popped into my head and I remembered a looong time ago when I went on their website that I got that “ick” feeling. There were questions that were cringe-worthy, such as the ones where you describe yourself and one of them says “I love to clean. I am not happy if there is a speck of dust on the furniture or something out of place.” (paraphrasing, but close)
Other descriptions were Stepford-wife-ish….yeah, I got the heck off of there. There was a reason these men could not find good women in real life. Probably had too many restraining orders on them. Ahem.
So…coupled with all the other aspects, it is my guess that places like eHarmony are trying to do eugenicists’ work of matching the “right” people up so they will know which ones are the “good” ones and which ones to eliminate. Just a hunch.
And the members of the Dominionist Movement reads like a who’s who of neocons:
The Yurica Report obtained a list of members from several years prior that reveal the heavy weights in the Christian and hard right dominionist movement. Here is a sample: Gary Bauer, Pat Boone, Grover Norquist, Dr. Gary North and R. J. Rushdoony, (North’s father-in-law, the founder of the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement), Lt. Col. Oliver North, Pat Robertson, James Robinson, Howard J. Ruff, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Phyllis Schlafly, Bob Jones, III, Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Dr. James Kennedy, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Marlin Maddoux, Peter Marshall, Jr., Dr. James Dobson, Jeffrey Coors, Joseph Coors, Bill Bright, Major General John K. Singlaub, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Jerry Falwell, Father Charles Fiore, Alan Gottlieb, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, John W. Whitehead, Rev. DonaldWildmon, Pierre du Pont, Ann Drexel, Arnaud deBorchgrave, Richard DeVos, Terry Dolan, Sen. William Dannemeyer, Jesse Helms, etc.
I went looking for Tim LaHaye, and found this video dispelling his “Left Behind” book’s theory about Revelation. You might want to grab your Bible, because he sites many passages to back up what he’s saying:
It’s unfortunate that we can’t hear the questions at the end. I think he makes sense with his argument. I disliked the marketing of “Left Behind” when it was out. I felt then — before I knew what it was about– that it was distasteful and profiting off of Jesus.
When I was at the Presbyterian church for my Dad’s funeral service, I went into the reading room/lounge and saw several “Left Behind” books. That shows me that these folks, despite their protestations, are indeed pushing the church towards hardcore evangelism. (The woman who talked to me said the church was still going to be Presbyterian, even after seceding from the national church.)
The church that I grew up in was more tolerant and had a good balance between “liberal” and “conservative” folks. It was a healthy, vibrant church that was packed nearly every Sunday, with two worship services going. Now the church is perhaps a quarter full with only one service. This tells me that the neocons/dominionists are lying about people leaving churches in droves because of the liberal policies. Indeed, I think the opposite is probably true — they left because of self-righteous, hardlined, judgmental, evangelicals who curiously started pushing their views onto the public at about the time people started leaving the churches….hmmm…
Not only do I dislike the “Left Behind” marketing of Jesus, but have the same feelings towards anything that “markets” Jesus. Like the recent Mark Burnett/Roma Downey movies of the Bible — especially them purposely making up the devil to look like Obama. My blog on that here.
…what better way to proceed than to cloak the corruption within a religion? If a few men wanted to establish an American empire and control the entire world, what better vehicle to carry them to their goal than to place their agenda within the context of a religion? Jim Jones proved religious people would support even immoral political deeds if their leaders found a way to frame those deeds as “God’s Will.” The idea was brilliant. Its framers knew they could glorify greed, hate, nationalism and even a Christian empire with ease.
She goes on to note that it’s a clever ploy to cloak the true goals of the dominionists in religion…because they can make the claim that they are being attacked for their religion. Clever. And evil.
It is really mindboggling how vast and wide this conspiracy is — and how they love Machiavelli, despite him being evil —
The father of neo-conservatism [Leo Strauss] had many “spiritual” children at the University of Chicago, among them: Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, who received their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. Harry V. Jaffa was a student of Strauss and has an important connection to Dominionists like Pat Robertson as we shall see below. However, Strauss’s family of influence extended beyond his students to include faculty members in universities, and the people his students taught. Those prominent neo-conservatives who are most notable are: Justice Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol and his son William Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle, Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Michael Ledeen and scores of others, many of whom hold important positions in George W. Bush’s White House and Defense Department.
(And will, no doubt be in Jeb Bush’s White House, too, if he is elected. God forbid.)-me
Strauss’s teaching incorporated much of Machiavelli’s. Significantly, his philosophy is unfriendly to democracy—even antagonistic. At the same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national religion not because he favored religious practices, but because religion in his view is necessary in order to control the population. Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss are in control of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list that shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am indebted to Shadia Drury’s book (Leo Strauss and the American Right) and published interviews for the following:
First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled.
Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: “Secular society…is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”
Fifthly: “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. ”
Sixthly: “In Strauss’s view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations.”
All of this just makes my head swim. What part of the Ten Commandments don’t you get? What part of Jesus’ teachings don’t you get?? There is no justification of this at all.
So… this brings me back to how I got to all of this — David Antoon, a Christian veteran, was shocked and appalled at what was happening to the armed forces. They were being taken over by evangelicals who ruled with an iron fist. Note the connection to James Dobson, Colin Powell, and others of the Bush regime.
When then-Secretary of State Colin Powell again sold his soul in front of the United Nations and the world, the die was cast. I say again because as a major on his second tour in Vietnam, Powell whitewashed reports of the My Lai massacre and attempted to discredit and silence those few, most notably Ron Ridenhour, who had the courage to get the story into Hersh’s hands.
This is the first I’ve heard of Colin Powell’s involvement of whitewashing reports of My Lai. I don’t think even when they were talking about My Lai on shows like 60 Minutes did they bring up Colin Powell. Perhaps, but I don’t recall it. It definitely should have been brought up with the whole theatre of tubes at the UN. He was not a credible person, so his assertions should have been met with healthy skepticism. We all know how that turned out.
In what would have been my son’s academy summer encampment, chaplain Watties “suggested” that cadets return to their tents and tell their tent mates they would “burn in hell” if they did not receive Jesus as their savior.
This is exactly what was done to me –except I was going to burn in hell for getting a divorce.
But wait, if anyone tries to sue according to infringement of their 1st Amendment rights:
In 2005, when Weinstein filed suit against the Air Force for constitutional violations of church-state separation, the House of Representatives, with little public notice, passed a chilling bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679, provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions that violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorney’s fees. According to The Washington Post, the purpose of this bill is to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.
As I’m reading all of this, I think about how I started seeing financial sessions in churches in the 90s. They were having investment seminars and such. This goes completely against Jesus’ actions of throwing the bankers and merchants out of the Temple, saying that it was a holy place and they were defiling it. In this action, Jesus made the religious leaders look bad because they had allowed it. I strongly feel this particular incident, along with the others, led to his murder.
And we have more Bush connections:
COO Schmitz, another Naval Academy graduate, is a member of the Order of Malta, a Christian supremacist organization dating back to the Crusades, and happens to be married to the sister of Jeb Bush’s wife, Columba.
As I look back at my 30 years as an active-duty officer, two combat tours in Vietnam, decorations including air medals and the Distinguished Flying Cross, I realize that not once was my service in support or defense of the Constitution. For the very first time, I am upholding my oath of office.
Does anybody else see the irony between George W. Bush’s having a cozy stateside position and still going AWOL, and that of Antoon, who faced combat and is decorated, and now is speaking out in defense of the Constitution that Bush and his mafia are seeking to destroy?
Secrecy in the Club of the Most Powerful
Jimmy Carter on the Christian Right not being Christian at all.
Military Religious Freedom Foundation.