christian nationalism

I have not seen or heard the exposition that caused the starting point of this thread, but have some comments based upon the title.I have done some preliminary research into the state of scholarship regarding the relationship of fundamentalist "christiantiy" to the psychological characteristics of such adherents. The number of scholarly articles connecting fundamentalism to racial prejudice using the usual methods of qualitative analysis employed by social scientists appears to be running between 1/3 to 1/2 of all articles obtained from the EBSCO database Academic Search Premiere using the terms Christian, fundamentalist, and psychology. These articles indicate strong correlations between Christian fundamentalism and racism (.2-.3+).One of the more recent articles, from the bastion of Baptist scholarship, Baylor University, indicates the correlation is not necessarily due to fundamentalism but rather right-wing authoritarianism. That of course begs the question about the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and "christian" fundamentalism.It appears obvious to me, and has been for some time, that fundamentalist "chrisianity" by demanding a Nordic Jesus with blue eyes, an anthropomorphic Santa Claus-like Caucasian God, a nearly all-male pantheon of the saved, with revelation of the one true religion only coming from a few tribes in a specific location to the exclusion all other people and all other cultures, is by definition racist, sexist, and ultra-nationalistic.However in fairness, considering the history of the world, invoking and manipulating whatever religious yearnings in the populace to further ones need for power is not a uniquely Christian phenomena.Additionally, what's the deal with the war against science? Did the role of genetic manipulation of agricultural plants in saving at least 2 billion lives not please those that believe in the ultimate message of Jesus or does such adherence require one to feel such people were from an inappropriate tribe?I wish that more people who refer to themselves as Christian would fight those who worship this ugly cariciture of Christianity foisted upon the gullible by the manipulative.{abe} clarityThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 01:53 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 01:57 AM

I finally got a chance to listen to the broadcast. It addresses why I consider the Christian Reconstructionist movement, particularly the Dominionism part, an affront to the teachings of Jesus (or any other religious figure of significance) and to anyone who truly supports the Constitution of the United States.From this broadcast I understand that the idea behind Christian Nationalism is to eliminate the seperation of church and state, make Christianity a privleged and dominant religion, rewrite history according to their ideology, and either control or eliminate public education.I understand there is a Christian Reconstructionist Movement which seeks to make the Bible the source of all law (like the Taliban did with the Quran), which would result in the execution of all homosexuals, alduterers, and women who have engaged in premarital sex.I understand that part of this movement is the Dominion Movement, which wants to infiltrate American Society and use it as a tool in a goal of World conquest. Yes, according to this broadcast and according to the research I mentioned in my previous post, but did not specifically state or elaborate on. These movements clearly require an enemy, and homosexuals are the current bad guy.I have been guilty of cratering more than one forum, and I don't want to because I would prefer to act a a good citizen of this community, but still feel compelled to attack what I view as anti-Christain Christians. Why is there such a need for hate and intolerance.I would like to know where the fundamentalists in this forum really stand on some of the issues raised in this broadcast. Including:US military conquest of the world
Infiltration of US government for subversive purposes
Elimination of Public Education
Execution of certian groups according to Biblical Law (as they interpret)
Support of Racism
Psycological support of Authoritarianism
Elimination of Freedom of Religion
Institutionalized bias against homosexuality
Control over all scholarship, so that research and conclusions must be approved by religious bodiesI realize these topics may be threads unto themselves. However, I have not heard/read any creationist fundamentalist type support freedom of religion, write against the execution of certian groups, or even against the idea they should take over the US and then the world through violent warfare. This would provide an opportunity.It would also provide me with some peace of mind if fundamentalists actually spoke out against any of the above in the preceeding list.I am too passionate about my religion and the enlightenment and its results including science and representative democracy to keep silent sometimes, and that results in being a bad citizen of this forum by taking posts off-topic. Sorry, maybe consideration of the above will help, in this or other threads.

quote:

---

I also don't see how you got most of those things off that NPR interview.

---

Using the total broadcast time of 38:54, the following may be found at - 16:36 - From Grant of the Dominion Movement - "Christians have the obligation ... to establish dominion over the world." Also the repeated refrain "it is dominion we are after" The "we" clearly meaning US members of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement.Glad to see you reject this proposition. The Generation Joshua group mentioned at 7:25 is designed to infiltrate the US government, the word was even used in the context of that group. One purpose of this group and the Christian Reconstructionists in general (18:40) is to strip the ability of the court system to rule on the establishment clause via the Constiution Restoration Act which was passed by the House and is endorsed by the Republican Party Platform. The passage of this act would subvert the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution. There is no clear call to eliminate public education in the broadcast but rather clear calls for rejection (5:45). I put this one up to see the reaction as at least one poster to this forum (not you) who has called for the extermination of public education in the US. The Christian Reconstruction Movement call for the replacement of civil law with "Biblical Law" part of which means the execution of homosexuals, aduterers, and all women who engage in premarital sex was specifically and unequivocally stated at 12:45 and 31:00. Acually, in speaking of the Christian Right (21:00), the statement in the broadcast was that, unlike the past, bigotry against Blacks, Jews and Catholics was now taboo but that as a movement needing an enemy, the new enemy is homosexuals. The reason I put this one up is because my research indicates that while support of such bigotry, while taboo for the leadership, still appears common among the followers. Will elaborate in next post on this thread. Not specifically mentioned but according to the common definition, such support is all over this broadcast. Because it is clear I must define authoritarianism before examining this issue further, I will include such discussion in my next post. At 3:40 in the broadcast they clearly state the Christian Reconstructionist Movement wants to make Christianity "dominant and privileged" in relation to other religions. IMHO such a position would be similar to the idea freedom of religion in China and some Islamic nations, which runs from discouragement to elimination. IMHO, my religion would be illegal under Christian Reconstructionists. Execution of homosexuals would be an obvious indicator of instiutional bias IMHO. The bradcast also spent some time on the strategy whipping up fears of homosexuals as a group being a threat to Christianity (22:00 on). In most historical cases of genocide, the authorities first seek to demonize the target. It is an understatement on my part to say I am not comfortable with what I am hearing here. In the broadcast at 1:25 to 3:14, an example was the CDC panel on abstinence education where the panel's conclusion was unanimously rendered that abstinence education was a failure. The panel was then accused of bias by some politician who used the unanimous opinion as evidence of bias. His solution was to pack the panel with non-scientist religious figures in order to come up with a conclusion he and his Christian Reconstructionist supporters would agree with. This is not the only case of such interference in science under the current administration.I find it interesting we can listen to the same broadcast and not quite hear the same thing. {ABE} Anyway, thanks for responding.Edited by anglagard, : speling, and last sentence

Exact words starting at 12:32 -"Christian Reconstrucionism is probably the most extreme form of Christian Fundamentalism ..um..it presribes something very much like the Christian Taliban, it calls for the imposition of Leviticus, the execution of homosexuals, the execution of adulterers, the execution of women who are unchaste before marriage."Exact words starting at 30:46 -"...people who are kind of unabashed theocrats, people who are Christian Reconstructionists who adhere to an ideology that proposes replacing civil law with Biblical law you know that would execute people for you know vast numbers of moral crimes that is ...very... it's openly theocratic"While I may be able to understand not hearing the same emphasis in an interview due to preconcieved notions, to deny the existance of something stated so clearly in the interview is flat out a denial of reality.However, I am willing to test my ability to hear this interview against yours, Faith. I would like to see if anyone else hears what I heard so anyone else please feel free to post on this exact issue of perception of reality, if you have the time or desire.For your convenience here is a link to the interview:New Book Examines Christian Nationalism : NPR

The only website I can dig up that is from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective is The Chalcedon Foundation at Home. On the surface, it appears to be mainline fundamentalist with a lot of defensiveness against outsiders who they accuse of maligning them, along with some obvious implications they want to replace civil law with their interpretation of Biblical law.However, if one takes the time to dig deeply enough, one can find what they support but choose not to trumpet too loudly, such as this:

quote:

---

"From this discussion we can see that, according to the teaching of the Torah and following the metaphysical, moral and judicial definitions provided by the law of Israel, this sin, this metaphysical disorder, this moral and social disorder which is the nature of homosexuality, merits the death penalty.."

---

From "The Christian Confronted by Homosexuality" by Jean Marc Berthold dated August 12, 2003. The link http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0308/030812marc.php can be found on the left side of the website under articles.More research indicates this Biblical law business is largely what the Christian Reconstructionist Movement is about.For some outside perspectives see the following:CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMYChristian reconstructionism - WikipediaApparently Christian Reconstructionism is much worse than I gathered from the interview according to the above, although evidently not all members are completly without redeeming social value as they have not yet reached a consensus on the concept of reimposing human slavery.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

The documentary Jesus Camp appears to be all over the news lately. Is this the Dominionist army in training?