3 March 2006 - 3:05pm
Missouri legislature introduces bill to establish Dominionist government
In other words, they want to establish Christianity as the official state religion: (registration required)
The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.
The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."
State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.
So there you have it. Because nobody needs governmental protection as much as the majority.
Joshua Holland writes on AlterNet:
But people who write bills like this aren't trying to make law. Their intent is to further the right's narrative that Christians are a persecuted minority under siege. They want to guarantee that the good folks at the Anti-defamation league, the ACLU and Americans United fight to have their silly legislation overturned, proving that those civil rights groups have an anti-Christian agenda (and perhaps even a direct association with Satan). And bills like this -- you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more obviously violates the Establishment Clause --are meant to give those groups a victory in court, thereby proving the existence of out-of-control activist judges dedicated to stymieing the popular will of the Christian majority.
You can see it coming a mile away. But being forewarned doesn't make you forearmed; you'd have no choice but to jump right in and grab that bait with both hands.
I think Joshua's onto something. We see the same kind of victim claims from the Republicans controlling Congress and even Bush's White House.
Pity the poor President! He's so powerless against the peasants!
In the comments on AlterNet, mythbuster writes:
When I joined 1,100 people at Ash Wednesday mass this week, I thought "Christianity is under attack"? I can practice freely without interference, including keeping a Bible on my desk at work. Christianity faces about as much oppression in America as people eating donuts or watching football. The only thing these Fundamentalists have to fear is themselves.
No kidding. America happened because of state-sponsored religious oppression in Europe. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution codifies a hard and fast structure to prevent such oppression from happening in this country.
Now these Dominionists want to tear down this founding bedrock of our democracy. This is patriotism? I don't think so. What next? Establishing an official race? An official genome? An official history?
Every day, these Republicans start to sound more and more like Orwell's Communists.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Missouri may also want to pass some other resolutions:
Majority Race: White
Majority Political Party: Republican
Majority Pass Time: TV
Majority Beverage: Beer
It's only a resolution, not a bill ... but still. Ick.
--|PW|--
Dominionists or Demonists ?
I personally object to these kinds of pseudo-religious activities. Plus it has always been a dictum of Western Life to avoid mixing religion and politics. Doing so is not always done in the extreme -- like Nazi Reich Bishops-- but tragic consequences can still result. What was the "trigger" for the Thirty Years War? The debate over adult verses infant baptism. Or the question: "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" was a political question in its own time --a test for political correctness.
I personally am morally offended, even apalled, about the Evil-gelicals. Why? Because in the church I grew up in, religion was something to be taken very seriously. Not a "feel good"/"share the feeling" party. So in preparation for Confirmation, we had to learn a little about how the Bible/New Testament was put together. For example, as I remember, there were eleven or twelve "versions" of Matthew (or one of the other basic books) that had to be selected from. That everything "christian" -- including writings and letters and personal letters-- had been so persecuted that a "reconstruction" of three-hundred year old events had to be "finalized" in the 4th Century. (You can read this in Eusabius' "History of the Church") So, to counter just one modern claim, there never was an inspired work. (Remember the 'criticism': "can't god inspire the same story the same way twice?")
But another thing we were taught was "watchout for what the Devil says" in the Bible. To wit, reading through Matthew, Mark and Luke and keeping track of who says what:
Bible says, Satan says, "son of god"
Bible says, possessed people say, "son of god"
Bible says, Satan-Simon says, "son of god" --which is why Jesus calls Simon-Peter a "satan" ('Get behind me, Satan', Matthew version)
Bible says, a cloud, a boat-load of sailors, say "son of god"
Plus the scenes in the Bible are different in each book...trip up the mountatin, "who do you say I am", and so forth.
Then there is the opening of Mark, but the only other "son of god" quotes in his book are Satan and the "possessed". And that "Mark" came from the "Secret Book of Mark" --quoted and described by Polycarp and others-- which say that two/three verses were deleted to form "Mark" because they always were considered homosexual inuendo or acts. So "Mark" -if these were included now- would be a self-proclaimed satanist with a homosexual agenda. (Jesus was smeared by a lot of people !)
As for the "Book of John", which in some seminaries is called the "problem of John", satanic themes are mixed in with 1st Commandement themes and John contradicts itself within chapters and across chapters.
And the murder/persecutor Saul-Paul (Acts). In short, his "do evil" dictum at Romans Chapter three demonstrates how enthusiastic he was for the Words of the Devil. So the "road to Damascus" is the "road to Hell".
So for us, what Missouri has done is to advance the cause of Satanism
because Bible Says, Satan Says, "son of god".
For the minority who think Jesus was "god", why would the God of Noah and Abraham and Moses break His own 2nd Commandment (Exodus 20 --no graven images).
I think I am going to be a Democrat for a good long while! <--a political reaction to religous themes similar to the above.
...but the Democrats are moving in the same direction. One of the sponsors of the SD bill, for example, is a Democrat.
(BTW, no need to shout here.)
I just read on MSN that parents in a Missouri town had complained about a book in the children's section of the library about two male penguins nurturing an egg and raising the chick together. Supposedly this has homosexual overtones. (True zoo story) Good Grief.
Here.