Sarah Palin's At It Again With Dominion Theology

With her hairdo in this photo, Sarah looks like exactly the woman to take this country back to the 50s and 60s in this photo. There's nothing wrong with Palin's hair, but it does make me think of an Anita Bryant/Samantha Stevens kind of mash-up, slightly updated with a touch of 70s.


That's a screen shot from the Huffington Post story about her saying on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News Show that "the recent backlash against the National Day of Prayer is proof that

some people are trying to enact a "fundamental transformation of America" and to "revisit and rewrite history" in order to shift the Christian nation away from its spiritual roots.

Palins's advice: "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

"What in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to." (HuffPo has video)

O.K. Now jump back five years. Remember the stories during the campaign about a pastor annointing Palin. I keep telling people, pay attention to those who advocate Dominion Theology.

Despite concerted efforts, disturbing evidence pointing towards the likely nature of Sarah Palin's religious beliefs continues to emerge. Yesterday "scrubbed" footage, from a 2005 "anointing" of then-Alaska gubernatorial contender Sarah Palin, resurfaced on the website of the net-based alternative news service The Irregular Times. The footage showed Kenyan minister Thomas Muthee not only praying over and blessing Sarah Palin, to advance her bid for the Alaska governorship and protect Palin from a "spirit of witchcraft", but, prior to the blessing, Muthee gave a seven to eight minute speech in which he called on believing Christians to "infiltrate" a number of key areas of secular society including Banking and finance, schools and education, media, politics and government. (article)

While not a constantly devout Christian, whatever that means to you, I was once active in the Evangelical church culture that promoted a Christian right agenda for America, and I studied the Bible. So, I speak from knowledge when I say that I strongly disagree with Dominion Theology from a biblical perspective.

I don't believe that Jesus told Christians to take over the physical world and revolutionize worldly governments to follow his teachings. I keep going back to 1 Peter 4:15, which tells us not be meddlers/busybodies, meddling in the lives of others. Not to mention that Paul, a Roman citizen, spent no time at all telling Christians they were to take over Rome and make Rome conform to Christian beliefs. The biggest error in Dominion Theology is this teaching that America is a Christian nation, almost a second Israel selected by God.

It's one thing to work to persuade people to turn their hearts over to Jesus the Christ, and quite another to force people to turn their laws over to the followers of Jesus the Christ. I don't know which Bible they've read, but the one I read says nothing about the world being all tidy, adhering to Christian laws, just in time for Jesus's second coming.

Seems to me, if Sarah's actually read her Bible's New Testament, she should expect the world to not clamor to live by anything resembling biblical principles or law, not waste time whining that people don't "love the Lord" the way she does. And now for the scarier connection: Hitler also thought he was doing God's will.

Yes, I know there are people who think we should not ever use Nazi Germany to make a case. I disagree. If it walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, invoke a history lesson.

And no, I don't think protesting and asking America to live up to the ideals of its constitution for the sake of social justice, as did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is the same thing as trying to force America to subvert its constitution and reshape it this nation into a theocracy.

Syndicated at BlogHer: Texas School Board Wants Your Child's Mind

O.K., at BlogHer.com, that's not the title of the post. It's really that my post "Texas Thrashes History: Will We Need Honest History Month Now?" has been updated and syndicated at BlogHer.com. Seriously, not enough people are paying attention to this story. They think it's about Texas, but as another blogger said on this matter, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. The Texas State Board of Education has removed Thomas Jefferson from its social studies curriculum and replaced him with St. Thomas Aquinas, William Blackstone, and John Calvin. Religious conservatives want to abolish separation of church and state. You should be concerned. Read more.

Texas Thrashes History: Will We Need Honest History Month Now?

This post has been updated and is now syndicated in its entirety with edits at BlogHer.com

The people who keep asking "Is Black History Month still necessary?" may have to concede, thanks to Texas, that months acknowledging the contributions of specific groups may be more necessary than ever now and in the future. In fact, thanks to Texas, we may have to start something called "Honest History Month," 30 days of untwisted education. Yes, this post is about the Texas State Board of Education opting for social studies and history books that stress a conservative world view and how that move will affect your child's education and possibly America's political future.

If you've missed the story, here's a lead from the New York Times:

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

That last part about "questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government," should disturb you because it's referring to a belief that there's no such thing as separation of church and state.

There's a teaching among Christians, Dominion Theology, that says America is a Christian nation and therefore its laws may impose Christian moral standards on citizens. Say good-bye Civil Rights. Christian moral standards have been used in the past to promote segregation, that black people are cursed by God and deserve to be treated as such (justification for the slave trade), and that the head of woman is man (justification for a Patriarchy). So, condition a generation of children to think that there's no such thing as the separation of church and state and see where that road takes you.

I tossed Black History Month into this discussion because studying why we have BHM and how it came to be offers a lesson in how distorting history can swing opinion about certain groups and influence political decisions. Like so many issues in America, race is a factor in this Texas story as well. More from NYT:

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

Right now we're in Women's History Month, another spotlight on a marginalized group. If you downplay feminism and promote the likes of a Phyllis Schafly more to fill the void, what are you really doing?

So, Texas is doing something even more insidious than marginalizing a minority or oppressed group, which could be construed as an oversight. The Texas decision is a move to change the political landscape beginning with your child. Before you say, "Oh, well, I don't live in Texas so that doesn't concern me," please consider the following: Texas is so big that its textbook purchases can influence the history books used by other school systems in America, according to CNN and also Gabriel Winant writing at Salon.com. Winant's opinion piece tells why he thinks Texas's decision is dangerous.



While Texas just voted for what they're calling a "more balanced" history, conservative claims that America has been corrupted by liberal spin in education is not new. In July 2008, Leslie Madsen Brooks, who also blogs at The Clutter Museum, published at BlogHer.com, "Are Liberal Professors Brainwashing Our Youth?" She said "no" and called the notion alarmist.

I think that these Republican and conservative Texans, with a completely different view from Madsen, believe they're doing just that, sounding the alarm against liberal tyranny. I suspect they see themselves as the Paul Reveres of the day.

But let the rest of us wake up, people! Pay attention. These Texas conservatives are employing the strategy of cooking the frog slowly. Should you object, I'm sure Texans who support this curriculum change have a ready answer for you: "States' Rights!"

The bright side of this is, per CNN and NYT, that digital publishing makes it possible for states that don't want to go the way of Texas to design their own textbooks. So, what does that mean? Will we be a nation of dueling histories? Is there no room for an objective telling of actual events?


Udated, 7:44 CST: I decided to add this ABC video that I received in email from a fellow blogger. The video is a profile of Dr. Don McElroy, the Republican who is excercising his power to influence what your children think. He's a dentist and self-described fundamentalist Christian who believes this world must be restored to biblical principals. Watch.

America is Less Christian: Does that Mean Me?

Last night before I went to bed (really it was the wee hours of the morning), I saw a news story that says fewer Americans identify themselves as Christians. Immediately I thought it's probably because the faith has been hijacked by the Christian Political Right. I have no proof of that, but I've long believed the Christian Right with its dominion theology and its push to remake the nation in its own image is driving people away from belief in Jesus as Lord.

Pure opinion on my part. However, since the Christian Right focuses on forcing people to follow rules before the accept Jesus--thou shalt not have abortions, thou shalt not be gay, thou shalt not disagree with our political agenda--I think they deserve some responsibility in why so many people run from Jesus before they have a chance to consider a personal relationship with him.

(CNN) -- America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found.

Seventy-five percent of Americans call themselves Christian, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 1990, the figure was 86 percent.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do it.

"The three most dreaded words are thou shalt not," he told Lou Dobbs. "Notice they are not atheists -- they are saying I don't want to be told what to do with my life."(CNN)

And yet, the article says "The survey also found that "born-again" or "evangelical" Christianity is on the rise, while the percentage who belong to "mainline" congregations such as the Episcopal or Lutheran churches has fallen." So maybe people need more structure, a defined course because evangelical Christianity demands commitment.

It's my belief that people should be drawn to the Jesus in you by how you live your own life and how you show love and compassion not by how you tell them they should live their lives. In fact the Apostle Peter told early Christians to not be busybodies, meaning don't run and tell the pagans how to live or try to force a Christian lifestyle on them. They were to show and preach faith in Jesus first.

Repeatedly we see in the New Testament that belief in Jesus must come before living a "moral life." The faith moves you to works not the works move you to faith.

I suspect people who are drawn to evangelical Christians and "born again" believers are drawn because they are seeing a conviction and yes, even light. When you meet a group of these type of believers who are more focused on following Jesus than on forcing America to bow to Christian doctrine, you see people showing a willingness to help others and living balanced lives. Balance is appealing. We crave balance, and let's lets face it, structure and balance simplifies our lives, reduces stress.

No, I'm not a Christian preacher. If you're enduring this post from me today, then blame it on Rachelle Mee-Chapman at BlogHer. Today I saw her post Lenten Thoughts: Why I Stick with Jesus Even When I Don't Believe." That combined with the report that America is becoming less Christian brought on this fit of spiritual examination.

Like Rachelle, I have had some struggles staying at the hem of the Savior's garment, but I think it's because I've stopped indoctrinating myself. I haven't joined a church since I moved back home, pick up the Bible only occasionally when I used to read it daily, pray now in slips of tongue as "Oh, Lord, help me" when I'm weary with life. It's hard to hold onto faith if you don't make a commitment to immerse yourself in scripture, surround yourself with other believers, and stay on your knees speaking to the Invisible. But then I ask myself why must I practice daily self-brainwashing to maintain my faith?

The answer comes back clearly that it's the love of God that drives you to immerse yourself in God, and like any other relationship if you don't nurture communication, it withers. It's the seed of faith that keeps God there when you ignore the Spirit. It's fear and stubbornness that keep you running in the opposite direction. Some of that fear is fear of looking like a fool for believing wrongly, which is why I think the Apostle Paul spoke of being "a fool for Christ."

If you read Paul's writings, you see that he was a brilliant logical thinker. If you're logical, then it will occur to you occasionally that perhaps you missed something; perhaps you're insane. Your logical mind challenges your irrational beliefs, and in this age of high tech and science that consistently throws religion under the bus, the battle for your faithful heart is waged moment to moment.

For instance, what do we Christians, who are taught only Jesus brings peace of mind, do with this kind of information published by a neurologist after research:

Based on new evidence culled from their brain-scan studies on memory patients and meditators, their Web-based survey of people's religious and spiritual experiences, and their analyses of adult drawings of God, neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, therapist Mark Robert Waldman, and their research team have concluded that active and positive spiritual belief changes the human brain for the better. What's more, actual faith isn't always necessary: atheists who meditate on positive imagery can obtain similar neurological benefits. (Andrew Newberg's site)

Do we dismiss it assuming Newberg has an anti-Christian agenda and so his science must be flawed? Do we say, "Ahh, but that's only further proof that a Creator has equipped us to believe in God even when we don't want to?"

In addition, a study of ancient archetypes may cause us to doubt, as Rachelle speaks of John Campbell's assertion of truth bearing myths. I saw the movie Watchmen over the weekend, for instance, and was reminded that the ancient Egyptian pharaohs believed in a final resurrection. That threw me for a second because that belief is also part of Christian doctrine, and it would be easy to hear that and think Christianity is just an amalgamation of ancient beliefs that powerful leaders know are effective for controlling the masses.

Yet, if I believe that, how can I explain some personal, very real experiences I've had with the presence of God. Do I walk away and say I imagined it all? If I accept that, then am I saying I was nuts? The mind is a tricky thing and why we believe whatever we believe may be rooted in our brain chemistry, but is it possible a higher power is behind that brain chemistry?

I know there are people who would disagree with what I've said or anything that appears to support faith in anything much less faith in Jesus as Messiah because they don't believe in anything they can't see and they see myriad details daily that they believe points elsewhere. It's also hard for people who've been completely immersed in beliefs different from belief in Jesus to do anything other than dismiss what I'm saying. Their brains are screaming, "Oh, listen to her. That's crazy talk! She's uninformed."

I told Rachelle in comments that ultimately we believe what we want to believe, and it occurs to me that perhaps we also beleive what's convenient for us to believe. The number of proofs that support our faith or proofs that don't support it matter less than we think. Case in point, I read Josh McDowell's book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and it made sense to me. But I can also see holes in what he says because my mind's wheels are always spinning. Is this why we have to let go and surrender to the mystery of God because it takes a power beyond us to stop our spinning?

McDowell's updated his book and much of what he says still makes sense from what I see in his lecture on video. Perhaps I'll pick up the latest copy, open my Bible, pray for more than 30 seconds and brainwash myself in the power of God. If it gives me peace of mind, ain't nobody's business but my own.



Part Two   ||  Part Three

Lessons Learned from Palin and Giuliani's RNC Speeches Tonight through a Black Woman's Eyes

I listened to Rudy Giuliani tonight and realized that Republicans believe that the only service to country is through war, that working for social justice as a community organizer and fighting for people's right to vote or fairness for families whose breadwinners have been laid off, or standing up to banks that take people's homes after suckering them into loan-shark mortgages is not worthy to be categorized as service to country.

I saw that Republicans do not applaud people who fight for social justice but instead ridicule them. (Did you see/hear them laugh when Giuliani said Obama had been a community organizer? He pretty much belittled everything Obama's ever done.). If you don't understand what it means to be a community organizer, then please consider that the greatest movements in the world have begun with community organizing. You can not be a good community organizer without also being a good leader, a good strategist, and a warrior.

The Civil Rights Movement was essentially begun and sustained through community organizing. So, while I commend John McCain for his wartime service, I submit that there are others who've fought for me and they did that through community organizing and standing up for justice. Of course, since John McCain at one time thought little of Martin Luther King, Jr., I can understand how McCain and his supporters would laugh at and belittle community organizers.

Consequently, it is true, I surmised after listening to both Giuliani and Sarah Palin tonight, that to be a Republican is to care for no one but people who have made it already and not for people who struggle financially or who are so poor they don't have the boots with the straps needed to pull themselves up. To be a Republican, I learned, is to distort facts, which is why they have such a love affair with Fox News, I guess . Republicans, I discovered after listening to Rudy Giuliani, don't really believe in "justice for all" but that "might makes right" and "every man/woman for him/herself."

They reminded me of Nazis. I know that sounds harsh, and people will dismiss my instincts on this comparison because it sounds over-the-top. But every time they started chanting anything, with their stiff hairdos and monolithic group appearance, I could only think of Nazi Germany rising, possibly decent people being led to commit horrors because someone pushes the right emotional buttons, nationalistic and religious buttons, in a warped view of what it means to be patriotic. (If anyone's interested, I've voted for a Republican before so I'm not a die-hard Dem.)

This country is in real danger. We have a Republican nominee for the presidency who jokes about bombing Iran, and a Republican VP nominee who frames the war against Iraq in terms of being a God-ordained war. Is it possible Palin thinks the war in Iraq is a "holy war"? If so, in ideology, she's no different from the Muslims who believe God calls them to kill people in the name of Allah.

Whenever people in a Democracy rise up and start saying it's good to do violence in the name of God or that their country, specifically, is called by God, you know we're in trouble. First they target those people over there, and then they target the folks at home who question the validity of that so-called "calling." (I consider myself a Christian, btw, but I do not believe in Dominion Theology, which is sort of the thinking you get when folks start declaring wars in the name of God. I suspect that Palin is a proponent of Dominion Theology, however. Dominion theologists do not believe in separation of church and state for America.) The more I read about Palin, the more I think she's wrong for American democracy. I mean, this is a woman who believes in banning books.

Did you get Palin's "always proud of America" swipe at Michelle Obama tonight? This whole thing that you can't find fault in the country and yet still fiercely love it disturbs me. And really, how can any so-called Christian claim that this is what love's about? To truly love is to see faults and love in spite of faults. And to live by truth is to not live in denial of errors. Can you improve yourself or a system if you won't admit there are moments of fault, that there are times that we should not be proud of our behavior? This belief that America can never be wrong and it's unpatriotic to admit America has faults is tied to the belief that America is God's chosen nation, to question country is to question God.

I love God too, and I know there are liberals who think anyone who believes in God is stupid. That's their problem not mine. Nevertheless, I say God was pimped out tonight by Republicans not glorified.

What I really loved during Palin's speech is her brining up the character issue. She said John McCain says the same thing about others when they're listening as well as when they're not listening, unlike Obama, she suggested, who expressed that some white working class people cling bitterly to guns and religion. I guess Palin doesn't know or doesn't care about McCain's character issue when it comes to what McCain had to say to a woman even while reporters were listening. (Oh, wait. He didn't insult all women, just his wife.) Perhaps McCain calling Cindy McCain a "c*nt" is just fine with Palin. After all, Palin she laughs when men belittle women.

And what's with all this getting weepy about special needs children? Isn't this the party whose current president vetoed SCHIP? That's not important though, right? Palin's special needs child has health care coverage.

I believe the Republicans are hypocrites who denounce Affirmative Action, for instance, but to win an election just did the "mack daddy" of Affirmative Action mambos, hustling tokenism galore. They did the worst form of it too, pushing an unqualified person to the front of the line for display purposes only. Palin's nomination is not about balance, it's about playing to the emotions of women who mourn Hillary's campaign and the religious right that's lukewarm on McCain.

In addition, Republicans idolize a misogynistic candidate yet call others sexist who ask legitimate questions about Palin's record and credentials. If you suggest Palin's a puppet, mouthing a speech that was posted in advance, then of course you only think that because she's a woman, right? As though men have never been accused of being pawns and puppets. Republicans are attempting to label people who don't like Palin as sexist, while they refer to this VP nominee as "cute" and "hot."

Yes, I've got issues with Palin, but I guarantee you my concerns about her being on the ticket have nothing to do with either her womanhood or motherhood or her daughter's pregnancy. I've got issues because the entire nomination smacks of hypocrisy and she's carrying enough baggage (Trooper Gate and more) to be the sister line of a slow train to Arkansas.

Nevertheless, I'll give the Republicans props. They know how to spin a message and how to manipulate the part of the masses susceptible to nationalism. They are masters of flipping the script, too, while pulling emotional strings. Have you noticed that Palin, a strong woman in the eyes of Republicans, is not a bitch but another "b" word, barracuda (and, yes, I know the name comes from her basketball years)? This ability to flip scripts, appear to embrace what they actually demean, this knack of redefining people and concepts--such as redefining Affirmative Action as "Reverse Discrimination"--or claiming that they're pro-higher education while painting a well-educated, Harvard law grad who's from a working class family as an "elitist" is both a skill and a talent. This ability is also an effective weapon in mobilizing people who are driven by emotion and are weak in critical thinking.

I have observed that like most religious fascists, Republicans tend to glorify conformity, quash dissent, and pummel or avoid people who question their decisions and agenda, as we can see by McCain canceling his interview with CNN. America, take a long look at these people. If we elect the Republican ticket this time around, get ready for a very bumpy ride. In the past Republicans have won by pushing fear, and now deftly push Americans, like Disney's lemmings, toward a fascist nightmare.

PS: Campbell Brown seemed to go overboard tonight praising Palin. I guess McCain and CNN management have her running scared.

Tags: [politics], [John McCain], [Sarah Palin]