Bachmann doesn't hate gays. Yeah, right.
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6172) 10 years ago
This hasn't gotten much mention in the press but it should. If you were running for President would you hire an accused terrorist and pal of Uganda's most virulent hater of gays?



http://gawker.com/5832740...gay-people
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Absolutely love this gem,

"Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay."


She is psychotic. I don't care that, supposedly, no serious political analysts believe she will be an actual contender (even though I know of quite a few people here in Miles City who plan on voting for her). I want to know how it is even possible for her to rise as far as she has within the Republican Party. Could a card-carrying member please enlighten me? I'm being completely serious. I do not understand this at all. And the sensationalism she brings to the table which feeds the media is not the sole answer. She has proven she can get the votes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1911) 10 years ago
"I want to know how it is even possible for her to rise as far as she has within the Republican Party."

Because for the most part, the people who are the most rabid are the most enthusiastic, get the attention.

You can kiss John Huntsman goodbye. He's sort of questioning this kind of stuff.
Top
Posted by Cheryl Gaer-Barlow (+481) 10 years ago
I understand, in the "straw vote", she bought 6000 tickets (to vote),at $30.00 each, to give out to staff and followers. So actually, Ron Paul would have won, had her political machine not been in full gear. Her speech was the flag, Mom, hot dogs and apple pie. I felt she talked down to the public. (but that's just my opinion).
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
I'm not sure how you define 'rising' in the Republican party. The first primary's still 6 months away.

The Straw Poll is meaningless. More of an exercise in who wants to waste the most money busing people across the state.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5101) 10 years ago
Rickenhawk easing away from the anti-homo candidate? Can it be? WWJD?????
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Has she not repeatedly won elected positions, including positions as a Minnesota State Senator and her current Congressional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, winning the latter in 2006, 2008 and 2010? That sure seems to me to be someone capable of garnering support from somewhere and producing the votes when needed. Or, perhaps I am mistaken and they are all just flukes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
On an unrelated note... John Edwards' trial is set for October.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11984) 10 years ago
Using the "look over there, someone else did something bad" will in no way help the cause of Michelle Bachmann. She is a crazy woman who shouldn't have been elected dog catcher, let along run for president.

Was John Edwards a scumbag? Sure, but, again, that has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

I particularly loved her explaining how she had to run home on weekends and do grocery shopping and cooking for her huge family. None of whom were living at home at the time. And most of the 23 foster children were only in the house for respite care, some for as short a time as 3 days. There were NEVER 23 kids there all at once and there aren't any kids there now.

So why is this madwoman running home to buy groceries and make dinner for people who don't eat dinner with her? Is she hallucinating a houseful of people? What does she do with all the food she buys and cooks when the only occupants of the house are her closeted husband and her?

Or was she LYING LIKE A RUG in order to make herself more appealing to voters?

It has to be one or the other. Crazy or dishonest. Or maybe BOTH.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
If you truly want to understand what is motivating Michelle Bachmann, read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, and by extension Bachmann, are proponents of an idea called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy.

"Theonomy posits that the Biblical Law is applicable to civil law, and theonomists propose Biblical law as the standard by which the laws of nations may be measured, and to which they ought to be conformed. The basic goals of Theonomy are:

-Elevation of the importance of Biblical case law in the judicial system..

-Importance of civic rule by believers.

-Recovery of a more public and formalized acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God over human government, as they argue was predominant in the American Founding Era."1

"While many Christians believe that biblical law is a guide to morality and public ethics, when interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in advocating that civil law should be derived from and limited by biblical law. For example, they support the recriminalization of acts of abortion and homosexuality, but also oppose confiscatory taxation, conscription, and most aspects of the welfare state. Protection of property and life needs grounding in biblical law, according to Reconstructionism, or the state set free from the restraint of God's law will take what it wishes at a whim. Accordingly, Reconstructionists advocate biblically derived measures of restitution, a definite limit upon the powers of taxation, and a gold standard or equivalent fixed unit for currency.

Christian Reconstructionists describe their view of public ethics by the term, "Theonomy" (the Law of God governs); while their critics tend to label them "Theocratic" (God governs). The notable differences are that "theocracy" is usually thought of as totalitarian and involving no distinction between church and state, while Reconstructionists claim that "theonomy" is broadly libertarian and maintains a distinction of sphere of authority between family, church, and state.

For example, enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is done by family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses is outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, in some areas the application of theonomy could increase the authority of the civil government; prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry, active homosexuals, adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers, and perhaps even recalcitrant youths"2

IMO, Michelle Bachmann isn't really "crazy, dishonest, or both". She sees herself as a disciple of Schaeffer carrying out and implementing his vision. There is a lot of this kind of thinking at the roots of the tea-party republican point of view.

IMO, these goals and/or method of governance is not in our best interest and needs to be soundly defeated at the ballot box.


1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy
2http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ructionism

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/24/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
Heh, funny. I read this a few days ago and thought about posting it, but then thought to myself... well nobody's really pushed it THAT far...

But then Richard never disappoints.

http://www.washingtonpost...story.html

The Dominionist goal is the imposition of a Christian version of sharia law in which adulterers, homosexuals and perhaps recalcitrant children would be subject to capital punishment. It is enough to spoil the sleep of any New Yorker subscriber. But there is a problem: Dominionism, though possessing cosmic ambitions, is a movement that could fit in a phone booth. The followers of R.J. Rushdoony produce more books than converts.

So it becomes necessary to stretch the case a bit. Perry admittedly doesn't attend a Dominionist church or make Dominionist arguments, but he once allowed himself to be prayed for by some suspicious characters. Bachmann once attended a school that had a law review that said some disturbing things. She assisted a professor who once spoke at a convention that included some alarming people. Her belief that federal tax rates should not be higher than 10 percent, Goldberg explains, is "common in Reconstructionist circles."

The evidence that Bachmann may countenance the death penalty for adulterers? Support for low marginal tax rates.

Bachmann is prone to Tea Party overstatement and religious-right cliches. She opened herself to criticism by recommending a book that features Southern Civil War revisionism. But there is no evidence from the careers of Bachmann or Perry that they wish to turn America into a theocratic prison camp....


If this kind of attack sounds familiar, it should. It is not just an argument but a style of argument. Critics of a public figure take a marginal association and turn it into a gnostic insight - an interpretive key that opens all doors. Barack Obama was once trained in a community organization that was associated with Saul Alinsky , whose organization was reportedly subject to communist influence. And we all know what that means. Or: Obama's father was a socialist, anti-colonial Luo tribesman, and, well, like father like son. Never mind that that there is no serious evidence of political philosophic influence of father on son....

As always, this argument proves too much, making a Dominionist of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, by this standard, would be a theonomist as well, on the evidence of his Call to Renewal speech in 2006 - a refutation of political secularism.

Such secularism shows a remarkable lack of self-consciousness. Like any ideology, this one has philosophic roots that are subject to argument. Yet secularists often assume their view is the definition of neutrality and thus deserves a privileged public place. The argument that religion is fundamentally illiberal thus provides an excuse to treat it illiberally. Pluralism is defined as the silencing of religious people. Thin charges of Dominionism are just another attempt to discredit opponents rather than answer them - in the same tradition as thin charges of Kenyan anti-colonialism. It is easier, after all, to allege a conspiracy than to engage an argument.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
Using the "look over there, someone else did something bad" will in no way help the cause of Michelle Bachmann.


I'm not trying to help the cause of Michelle Bachmann. I'm addressing "I want to know how it is even possible for her to rise as far as she has within the Republican Party."

So far, she's been elected to the House of Reps in one district in Minnesota. And she's running for President. Silky won a statewide Senate office, ran for President twice, and was even nominated for VP.

Long story short... it happens. And it doesn't mean a group of tens-of-millions of voters issued an endorsement of that person's behavior.

Anyway I'm not sure what the allegations are about whether Michelle's Foster Kids made her commute from DC hectic enough... doesn't really matter to me.

Even if she made every bit of it up, it pales in comparison to Hillary's Tuzla fairy tale. Is Hillary crazy or dishonest, or both?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/26/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9307) 10 years ago
But you're voting for Michelle regardless, if she's the nominee... no matter how batpoop insane she is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Are you related somehow to Rumpelstiltskin? You do a marvelous job of spinning straw. The moral equivalencies you often concoct are rather outrageous.
~~~~~~
And seriously, if you want to understand how the republican/tea-party became the party of Christian reconstructions go study the involvement of Francis Schaeffer.

The video in the link below is a good place to start.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/p...ilosopher/
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
There's a (maybe subtle) difference between drawing moral equivalence and pointing out double-standards.

If I secretly hoped Michele Bachmann was going to be the next President, you could accuse me of drawing a moral equivalence in her defense.

Bachmann will never be President. Everyone knows it. And I'm on board with that.

So what I'm really asking is, why do you only care about these "integrity" issues when you're looking at someone on the other side of the fence?
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2749) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Kelly: THANK YOU! for posting the video! Again, people need to educate themselves on the behind the scenes involvement and impact that Francis Shaeffer has had on the social agenda of the republican party.



So what I'm really asking is, why do you only care about these "integrity" issues when you're looking at someone on the other side of the fence?


Not sure exactly who you are addressing here but... speaking for myself, I care about integrity issues on both sides of the fence, as should we all. If you bother to study the history of how "conservatives" arrived in there current state of belief, you will find significantly more disingenuousness among conservatives than among liberals. Most of the lies liberals have told in the last 20 years have been about sex and have truly little impact on things that matter.

P.S. (Conservatives/royalist have also been telling lies about sex for the last 1500 years for purposes of manipulation, but that is its own 150 post thread.)

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/29/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2749) 10 years ago
Richard,
You are quite welcome. Here is another for you...

Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2749) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
That guy seems as nutty as Bachmann.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9307) 10 years ago
Here's someone who's smarter than the average bear, talking about the "myth" of Dominionism.

http://www.patheos.com/co...as-a-myth/
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. The more I dig in to the question of how republicanism became what it is today, the more corrupt and disingenuous I find it to be. It is frightening how many of our fellow citizens have no clue what is really happening.

The last two months for me have experientially been kind of like when my mom finally told me in 6th grade that there was no Santa Claus. I remember being angry for being lied to for so long, but relieved that I was free of the delusional thinking and could be at peace with others. Thanks to everyone here at MC.com who has patiently (or maybe not) kept challenging my point of view for 5000+ posts. Specifically, I am thinking of Bridgier, Bob L, Gunnar, Stone, Wendy, Amorette, Mr. Webmaster and last but certainly not least, Brian Reed.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/30/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17752) 10 years ago


I keep waiting for one of us socialist liberal commie pinko types to get converted to Rick K's brand of neo-conservatism, or cash/aaron's brand of Tea Party Know Nothingism, but for some reason, that ain't happened yet.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5101) 10 years ago
Richard:

Don't thank me. I'm a jerk in real life. Ask anyone.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4950) 10 years ago
Hey Richard, did you forget our arguments?? LOL... How quickly we forget my friend....
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6172) 10 years ago
I knew some good would come of lurking on this damned thing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
So from what I gather from Bridgier's article, Francis Schaeffer's connection (as the apparent lynchpin of political dominionism) is that while he renounced theocracy, he didn't do it convincingly enough for those who never agreed with him in the first place (and never would)

And if the guy's work is theocratic, why can't you cite his actual work. Why do we have to be given 3 layers of left-leaning editorializing as 'proof' of what the guy's work supposedly said.

I've read some other quotations from his actual work that appears to say exactly the opposite of what's being claimed here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
The last two months for me have experientially been kind of like when my mom finally told me in 6th grade that there was no Santa Claus.


Just wait until he finds out about the Green Jobs Fairy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1591) 10 years ago
"Biblical Law is applicable to civil law."

That's awesome now we can throw stones at hookers and kill farmers for not rotating there crops properly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
Can you cite where that came from? It looks like a paste from the wikipedia article for theonomy. I don't see where Schaeffer wrote it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Rick: I will grant that Francis Schaeffer, understood the dangers of a theocracy and there is some indication that he rejected that concept to a point.

However, he was clearly was at the genesis of the religious right. He talked Jerry Fallwell into taking a hard stand on abortion. Up to that point the fundamentalist and evangelical communities all believe that abortion was a Roman Catholic issue. Schaeffer talked Jack Kemp and Bob Dole into making abortion a republican issue. The republican leadership saw it as a way to start winning elections and the fundementalist/evangelicals saw supporting the issue as a way to gain power, fill the pews, and the collection basket.

The entire monster has evolved into what we have today; a party and many of their presidential candidates that are pushing the Christian Reconstructionist point-of-view. Michelle Bachmann credits Schaeffer for shaping much of her thinking. If you want to understand what is motivating Bachmann, Perry, Palin, Santorium, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, etc., Francis Schaeffer and his Christian Manifesto is the place to start.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/31/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
You're moving the goal posts, Richard. You posted:

If you truly want to understand what is motivating Michelle Bachmann, read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, and by extension Bachmann, are proponents of an idea called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy.


Now since you linked Bachmann to Theonomy through Francis Schaeffer, when someone points out that Schaeffer doesn't sound like a Theonomist, there should be a different answer than "Well yeah, but he believed some other bad stuff that I don't like."

Either he was a theonomist or he wasn't. But saying that he was would be hard to reconcile with his actual words (vs the words put in his mouth by a bunch of evangelical-hating hacks)


From "A Christian Manifesto"
[W]e must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis. Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amendment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy.

In the Old Testament there was a theocracy commanded by God. In the New Testament, with the church being made up of Jews and Gentiles, and spreading all over the known world from India to Spain in one generation, the church was its own entity. There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ the King returns. The whole "Constantine mentality" from the fourth century up to our own day was a mistake. . . . Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day. But through the centuries it has caused great confusion between loyalty to the state and loyalty to Christ, between patriotism and being a Christian. We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country. To say it another way: "We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag."
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Part of the problem here is that theonomy has a sliding scale of definitions. Further, it shouldn't be used interchangeably with theocracy, as they are different. The focus here ought to be on the outcome or fruit of the matter.

This citation does a reasonable job of describing the expected outcome of Theonomy:
Although theonomic writers may not always agree on specific policy matters, goals often cited include:[6] ^ Jay Rogers. "What is Theonomy?". Retrieved 2008-02-29.

-Elevation of the importance of Biblical case law in the judicial system.

-Importance of civic rule by believers.

-Recovery of a more public and formalized acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God over human government, as they argue was predominant in the American Founding Era.

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


With those goals in mind, view the following clip and then tell me that Schaeffer isn't a Theonomist. If it walks and talks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Even a "soft theonomy" is still theonomy"



Much more importantly than trying to determine the exact theonomic disposition of a dead man, is the fact that the goals cited above are deeply held and espoused by the republican/tea-party and nearly all of their presidential candidates.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/31/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1591) 10 years ago
Leviticus
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
With those goals in mind, view the following clip and then tell me that Schaeffer isn't a Theonomist.


The only thing that video shows, Richard, is that the case for Schaeffer being a theonomist is thin (nonexistant). A speech on the dangers of humanist philosophy is something almost any Christian, or probably any religious person anywhere, has heard if not thought out themselves.

Anyway, please tell me specifically what Shaeffer said that makes him the granddaddy of theonomist theocrats everywhere?

Let's get down to something specific instead of just throwing material at the wall and hoping something sticks.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Anyway, please tell me specifically what Shaeffer said that makes him the granddaddy of theonomist theocrats everywhere?


I never said that he was the granddaddy of theonomist theocrats everywhere. That is your mischaracterization.

Again, the stated goals of theonomy are:

1. -Elevation of the importance of Biblical case law in the judicial system.

2. -Importance of civic rule by believers.

3. -Recovery of a more public and formalized acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God over human government, as they argue was predominant in the American Founding Era.


So if one makes statements that are virtually identical to the stated goals of theonomy, it is very reasonable to assume the person making those statement is essentially a theonomist. The following quotes are from "A Christian Manafesto": http://www.boundless.org/...001588.cfm


It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.

We must understand something very thoroughly. If society - if the state gives the rights, it can take them away - they're not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights - this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have - even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.

The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted.


This quotation of Schaefer is very much aligned with goal #3.

So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that's what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.

The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.


This statement is clearly aligned with theonomy goal #1

I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I'm 70... I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? ...

Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice....

It's not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven't they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means.... Where have the Christian doctors been - speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been - to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been - as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What's happened in the last 40 years?


These statements are clearly aligned with theonomy goal #2

We, who are Christians, and others who love liberty, should be acting in our day as the founding fathers acted in their day. Those who founded this country believed that they were facing tyranny. All you have to do is read their writings. That's why the war was fought. That's why this country was founded. They believed that God never, never, never wanted people to be under tyrannical governments. They did it not as a pragmatic or economic thing, though that was involved too, I guess, but for principle. They were against tyranny, and if the founding fathers stood against tyranny, we ought to recognize, in this year 1982, if they were back here and one of them was standing right here, he would say the same thing - what you are facing is tyranny. The very kind of tyranny we fought, he would say, in order that we might escape.


Again, These statements are clearly aligned with theonomy goal #2 and #3.

I think the Church has failed to meet its obligation in these last 40 years for two specific reasons. The first is this false, truncated view of spirituality that doesn't see true spirituality touching all of life. The other thing is that too many Christians, whether they are doctors, lawyers, pastors, evangelists - whatever they are - too many of them are afraid to really speak out because they did not want to rock the boat for their own project. I am convinced that these two reasons, both of which are a tragedy and really horrible for the Christian, are an explanation of why we have walked the road we have walked in the last 40 years.

We must understand, it's going to cost you to take a stand on these things.... There's a cost, but I'd ask you, what is loyalty to Christ worth to you? How much do you believe this is true? Why are you a Christian? Are you a Christian for some lesser reason, or are you a Christian because you know that this is the truth of reality? And then, how much do you love the Lord Jesus Christ? How much are you willing to pay the price for loyalty to the Lord Jesus?


These statements are clearly aligned with theonomy goal #2

And finally in the interest of intellectual honesty:

Every once in a while, as soon as we begin to talk about the need of re-entering Christian values into the discussion, someone shouts "Khomeni." Someone says that what you are after is theocracy. Absolutely not! We must make absolutely plain, we are not in favor of theocracy, in name or in fact.


As I granted you before, Schaeffer states that he is in not in favor of a theocracy. There is no arguing however that much of his book is focused on obtaining the same goals that theonomy desires to obtain. How one can argue that Schaeffer is not a theonomist when 99% of his book upholds the values of theonomy is beyond me. One paragraph saying that you don't want a theocracy among so many paragraphs that serve as a call to action to promote the thenomic agenda, is a very unbalanced approach. It is clear that his followers, like Michelle Bachmann, etc. didn't get that memo.

And should one of the tea-party republicans be elected and actually accomplish the theonomic goals and in fact establish a theocracy, are we to believe that Schaeffer would stand-up and oppose such events? I highly doubt it.

In the end, I stand my my original statements:

1. If you truly want to understand what is motivating Michelle Bachmann, read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, and by extension Bachmann, are proponents of an idea called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy.

2. He was clearly was at the genesis of the religious right. He talked Jerry Fallwell into taking a hard stand on abortion. Up to that point the fundamentalist and evangelical communities all believe that abortion was a Roman Catholic issue. Schaeffer talked Jack Kemp and Bob Dole into making abortion a republican issue. The republican leadership saw it as a way to start winning elections and the fundementalist/evangelicals saw supporting the issue as a way to gain power, fill the pews, and the collection basket.

The entire monster has evolved into what we have today; a party and many of their presidential candidates that are pushing the Christian Reconstructionist point-of-view. Michelle Bachmann credits Schaeffer for shaping much of her thinking. If you want to understand what is motivating Bachmann, Perry, Palin, Santorium, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, etc., Francis Schaeffer and his Christian Manifesto is the place to start.

3. Much more importantly than trying to determine the exact theonomic disposition of a dead man, is the fact that the goals cited above are deeply held and espoused by the republican/tea-party and nearly all of their presidential candidates. They need to be defeated in their efforts to impose the Christian equivalent of Sharia law on the liberty-loving citizenry.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (9/5/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
My word, Richard. First it's "A Christian Manifesto is Theonomic!" Then I point out the fact that it states pretty much the opposite of the point you're making, so you post some 10 minute video that's supposed to offer the real pudding proof.

Then I waste my time watching that and asking what the big deal is (specifically please) and you throw the change up and bring in another limitless waste of time to work through just so you can change up your standards again while maintaining the same thing you said all along.

I'll summarize just so we can wrap things up. You can take it or leave it.

1. Disagreeing with, or fighting for change within the courts over religious issues does not make you a theonomist. If it does, the ACLU is theonomist (or maybe atheonomist )

2. Asking Christians to stand up and be counted through speech and within existing democratic power structures, and to exercise democratic rights in order to affect change is not theonomic. If it is, MLK was a theonomist.

3. Pointing out the philosophical difference between the humanist's idea of 'rights' and the god-given inalienable rights envisioned by the founding fathers is not theonomic. It's history.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
Whatever Rick. I am sure that Jesus is very proud of you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
Thanks
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9307) 10 years ago
If you want to understand that "theonomy", ask a gay man in Uganda about it.

And then consider where the money comes from that seeks to enshrine the death penalty for practicing homosexuals in Ugandan law.

And then you'll realize that anybody who says "theonomy is a myth" or "no one really wants leviticus as the law of the land" or whatever doesn't know what the procreate they're talking about.

See also: http://www.patheos.com/co...-theology/
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1591) 10 years ago
"3. Pointing out the philosophical difference between the humanist's idea of 'rights' and the god-given inalienable rights envisioned by the founding fathers is not theonomic. It's history."

Wow! WTF

"It's history." That pretty much proves that you are a tea bagger.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11984) 10 years ago
So, which god decides which rights? I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He considers access to decent marinara sauce a god-given right.

Our Founding Fathers didn't consider universal suffrage to be a god-given right but we tend to do so now. Does god change his/her mind?

Or maybe. . .god has nothing to do with it. . .maybe we apes figure things out for ourselves.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1665) 10 years ago
One of the best assessments I've ever read in this regard, and succinct to boot:

When Christians tell stories of their God, it's called the Bible....when non-Christians tell stories of their god(s), it's called mythology.


Learn, live and love that Amorette, and life will be a barrel of contentment and happiness. Or so I'm told.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4458) 10 years ago
Stick with me on this Stone.

There was no basis in man's law for the Declaration of Independence. By man's law, it was treason. The Declaration's appeal to God's law and inalienable rights was a statement that God's law superseded man's.

Sounds theonomic to me, if what I'm reading here is true.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9307) 10 years ago
Jesus wept.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
I am beginning to think that Rick believes the only meaning of the word "context" is the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (9/7/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4455) 10 years ago
If you're implying Rick is a user of psychotropic fungi, I agree.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15094) 10 years ago
No, I am not implying that. I am just not convinced he knows there is more than one meaning for the word.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17752) 10 years ago
Rick seems more of the Oxycontin user, like his hero.
Top