Bruce Wilson continues to provide us all with some wonderful material.  It was like a trip back to the 1980s.  If it wasn't serious it might make decent comedy by way of parody. But alas. And as always, it's not targeted at any presumed Dominionist influence but at the evangelical community in general. So just for the sheer pleasure of reading some serious nonsense I'll provide a series of quotes with appropriate explanation. And you can laugh right along. All of the quoted material is from Testament of the Death Squads: Good Christ, Bad Christ, by Greg Grandin.

More than two hours of remorseless sadism, of thorns, whips and nails, washed away not just sin but theological quarrels that have defined Christianity since Luther nailed his 95 theses to the gate at Wittenberg Church.

Actually, the blood, thorns, etc., all happened roughly 2,000 years ago. The purpose of the books written at the time attempted to convey the horror of the event.

... he transubstantiated the body and blood of a humane and forgiving Jesus worshiped by less vengeful Christians ... into Christ in Pain, a castigated and castigating icon that served as a common reference point for an amalgamated Religious Right.

Please read Isaiah 53 for an update.

Hard-core dispensationalists believe that Israel needs to be defended only to be sacrificed at the Final Conflict, when upward of two thirds of Jews will be slaughtered and the rest either converted or eternally damned.

I'm trying to figure out what "hard-core" means. If he means "hyper" then it's not really Dispensationalism but a strange type of determinism.

... fundamentalists have come a long way from when Billy James Hargis, leader of the Christian Crusade, declared in 1962 that "the primary threat to the United States is internationalism."

In fact, conservative evangelicals are America's true internationalists. Congressional Christians like Virginian Representative Frank Wolf and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback consistently push the US government to deal with global humanitarian issues such as AIDS, sex trafficking, slavery, religious freedom, malaria, and genocide prevention.

Well, only if you want to redefine "internationalism" for your own convenience. Hargis would talk about the U.N. and other international treaties. But evangelicals (and other Christians) have always, for all two millennia of our existence, reached across national and ethnic boundaries.

In order to bypass public and Congressional opposition, the White House outsourced the "hearts and minds" component of its Central American wars to evangelicals.

And who should influence the hearts and minds of the nation? I seem to recall a time in the 1930s when a similar political alternative was proposed and then implemented. Dang Hegelians!

And the idea that the evangelical leaders were actually running foreign policy is just laughable. There has been influence but not this level of control.

... the banner of the lord of love popularized by Dan Brown ...

Really? Placing validity on ancient Gnostic fabricated history (and theological heresy)? So much for intellectual integrity.

As did their mainstream coreligionists, fundamentalists formulated their free-market moralism as a quarrel with liberation theology.

Not exactly. Marxism in its various forms, including liberation theology, feminist theology, black liberation theology, and so much more, has been treated as a serious heresy for a long time. Read the short and clear book The Challenge of Marxism by the late theologian Klaus Bockmuehl, published by IVP.

But the kind of moralism that many key fundamentalists used to justify the violence visited on Central America in the 1980s easily led to the kind of righteousness that today legitimates cluster bombing of civilians as an option of first resort.

And finally Mr. Grandin shows his true colors. Stopping the Communists was the wrong. Sad. But unfortunately so typical. But he doesn't stop there. No siree.

So when Jeane Kirkpatrick remarked that the three US nuns and one lay worker who were raped, mutilated and murdered by Salvadoran security forces in 1980 were "not just nuns, they were political activists," she was being more than cruel. She was signaling her disapproval of a particular kind of peace Christianity.

I hope you don't miss the "peace" implication here. It's a type of "Marxists for Peace" -- sort of like the US "anti-war" movement that really does support war. Oh but they do support wars that promote socialist internationalism (Marxism). Not freedom. (And with tongue planted firmly in cheek...) Long Live Fidel!

Sidebar:  I agree that those central American dictators are abusive.  But shall we substitute the expansionist abuse of Marxism?  I find it inconsistent with Christ's character to support either abuse.  The only advantage of the dictators is that they are not expansionists like the Cuban Marxists that Grandin/Wilson to whom give support.  But that's a practical advantage, not a moral one.  Funny how the Left is all in favor of removing these Central American dictators but not in favor of removing a middle-Eastern dictator.

It is sad how so many on the Left, who claim they are not "Communists" and denounce as "smear" any statement to that effect while so frequently giving verbal support to expansionist Marxist/Communist regimes and revolutions.  The position of Grandin is in his own words.  Mr. Wilson, and likewise Mr. Clarkson, might do well to distance himself.

Now in context ...

This type of material is completely in line with BBC "documentary" on the neoconservative movement. Like the BBC, the ties are weak and boil down to some pretty weak material.  The insinuation of an endemic anti-Jewish racism.  The idea of evangelicals seemingly controlling foreign policy.  The arbitrary redefinition of terminology to suit the purpose of the moment.  The idea that the political goals can be summed up in violence.  All of these are less than silly.  Childish is suitable.

Grandin, and by his own association Wilson, continue to express a hatred of evangelicals that is not found in either logic or historical truth. 

Sally Kern got in a heap of trouble. Just goes to show that you've got to keep an eye on the anti-private morality crowd. They'll record your private conversations and demand that you be out of a job. Here is what Sally Kern had to say:

The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, okay. It’s just a fact. Not everybody’s lifestyle is equal. Just like not all religions are equal. The very fact that I’m talking to you like this today puts me in jeopardy, okay. I’m not anti, I’m not gay-bashing, but according to God’s word that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it. It has more suicides. They’re more discouraged. There’s more illness. Their lifespans are shorter. You know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation. It’s a matter of fact, studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death nail for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat, even in our nation. Even more so than terrorists, or Islam, okay.

Cause, what’s happening now, they’re going after, err, in schools, two year olds! You know why they’re trying to get early childhood education? They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. I taught school for close to 20 years and we’re not teaching facts and knowledge anymore, folks, we’re teaching indoctrination, okay. And they’re going after our young children, as young as 2 year of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle.

You know, gays are infiltrating city capitals. Did you know, Eureka Springs, anybody been there? Have you heard that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays? There are some others, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Kensington Maryland, Vermont, Oregon, West Palm Beach, Florida and lots of other places in Florida. What’s happening?

They are winning elections, one of the things I deal with in our legislature, I tried to introduce a bill last year that would notify parents, err, schools had to let parents know what clubs their students were involved in and the reason I did that bill, primarily, was this: we had the gay-straight alliance coming into our schools. Kids are getting involved in these groups, their lives are being ruined, the parents don’t know about it.

So I introduced a bill that said you have to notify all the clubs participants’ parents. A colleague said: we don’t have a gay problem in my community, that’s why I’m not going to release that bill. You know what, to me, that’s so dumb, if you’ve got cancer or something in your little toe, do you say I’m just going to forget about it because the rest of you is fine? It spreads, okay. And this stuff is deadly and it’s spreading and it will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

Her statement was one of her understanding of the world around us, how a particular group is manipulating some events, and how God views their actions. Might she be correct? Let's continue to build on our summary of some of the popular Lefties and their view of the place of the evangelical and fundamentalist in American society.

Totalitarian #1: Rob Boston (Assistant Director of Communications of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State):

Would you be upset if you sent your son to a summer camp on geology only to learn that it was taught by a creationist?

There are some jobs some people just aren't suited to do - not because they have strong beliefs but because those beliefs don't jibe with well established facts. A doctor who rejects the germ-theory of disease, for example, might have a hard time keeping his license.

In his post, Boston maintains that belief in special creation is incompatible with both a legitimate education and a legitimate career. We see where he stands on practical religious liberty.

Totalitarian #2: T Murray: Is Christian Doctrine Compatible with American Values? The title says it all. The message of repentance is somehow not truly "American." I think that makes us some sort of enemy.

Totalitarian #3: Do you think bluegal will say anything about Obama's faith expressions in the BlogAgainstTheocracy? Don't hold your breath. The target is almost exclusively evangelicals,and more generally religious influence on government. What is acceptable religion to the left? It seems to be polytheism as liberals practice it. There is a public religion for the Left what would silence others.

Totalitarian #4: And going beyond the problem of the postmillennial dominionists, Bruce Wilson finds pleasure in an assault on premillennial dispensationalism, branding us as potential fascists. He employs George Lowe who makes this most outlandish remark:

Indeed, they can hardly wait, these southern sons and daughters of the lower middle class, to have their "Royal Church" raptured into Heaven which will symbolize to all the beginnings of the Tribulation and that blessed seven-year countdown to Armageddon-World War III. It will herald the long awaited arrival back on earth of their personal Lord Jesus Christ and their Raptured "Royal Church" to rule with their Lord Jesus Christ in His millennial kingdom for a thousand years of peace, prosperity, and great fornication to make up for the half of the world's people destroyed by Armageddon-WW III. And the weapons that would be used in This Final War, were the very nuclear bombs made possible by that first chain reaction at Stagg Field, the University of Chicago, on December 2, 1942, the same university created by the Baptist billionaire, John D. Rockefeller in the late 19th Century.

Thus the Religious Utopians of the Southern Baptist Convention would be able to bring total victory to Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity at a time of worldwide relative decline of Christendom's believers. This Last Christian Crusade of the early third millennium, preached by these Bible-thumping fanatics/zealots to the City of "the Bible wills it" and "Prophecy demands it' would most assuredly end secular history and civilization as we know it and destroy Nature as well. Whether it actually would bring Jesus back for his Second Coming or not, God only knows. But the SBCers, Know-Nothings, Christian Reconstructionists and American Christian Fascists are determined to create those historic conditions in the Mideast and especially in Jerusalem centering around the building of the Third Temple that finally fulfills the prophetic events of the End Times of "Days of the Lord." Then if the 144, 000 Jews are converted, the resulting Rapture triggers the Holy Chain Reaction, the religious equivalent of the atomic chain reaction at the University of Chicago on December 2, 1942. (And if they fail to create the great Armageddon-causing incident in Palestine, there's always Taiwan and the new Yellow Peril to trigger WWIII. (emphasis mine)

And all this time I've been teaching (from traditional dispensational sources like Ryrie and Pentecost) that it was God who was in control of the events. I wonder where Lowe gets the idea that the greater fundamentalist movement is trying to conjure of the return of Christ. I wonder why Wilson would use such a broad-brush approach to evangelicals?

There is a force that wants to create an enemy of the evangelical and fundamentalist. It's not enough to deal with the issue of Postmillennialism, Dominionism, and Reconstructionism. These attacks are broad and are filled with more historical nonsense than any toilet might contain.

Remember this?

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deepInto your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

The song is a classic representation of the "anti-War" Left of the 60s & early 70s. But I dare say, and this is certainly not a stretch, that the majority of people who listened to the song never participated in the marches, were never beaten by police, were never hauled off to jail. The song itself contains this purpose statement:

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.

The presumption here that paranoia is used as a negative stimulus by those who want control over you. If you're scared then you will stay in line.

The irony is that the song is itself an expression of extreme paranoia. It induces in the listener a fear that, for having the wrong opinions or are otherwise on the wrong side, "the man come and take you away." "There's a man with a gun over there," "There's battle lines being drawn," "Stop, hey, what's that sound," each of these statements is rife with the same paranoia that it confronts!

The Left today has continued this process. Nicole Belle is quite creatively using paranoia to instill fear of violence and promote a defensive posture. "I had to replay that a couple of times…does it sound to you like Broder is suggesting that Obama will be assassinated?"

Nicole is insisting that there may be violence and the comments that followed show that the sheeple picked this up. It also showed how a few decent posters picked up on the problem.

In all of this, as you read the responses to Nicolle's post, keep in mind that David Broder said NOTHING regarding violence. All of violent material came from, either directly or by stimulation, Nicole. Like her suggestion that it was acceptable to "trap" a sentaor, Nicole has gone far outside of civil discourse. Her work should be denounced and Amato should purge her from C&L. This material is unacceptable.

It is not David Broder who should concern us.

 

Cross-posted in Evangelical Perspective

There is a form of violent speech that I forgot. It's the threat. It's a directed form of violent speech intended to communicate either the real intent of the author or to instill fear of a potential intent. In both cases the recipient is placed in a state of fear.

Threats, it would appear, are generally anonymous. That's because the authors are usually afraid of either jail or retaliation. But that does not mean that the author is necessarily unwilling to go through with the threat.  It is a tragedy few do.

Religious statements are sometimes construable as threats.  When someone, an angry person, shouts loudly that "God will judge you," under certain conditions it can be understood that the person considers him/herself to be in a place for God to use for that judgement.  But not all messagesof judgement are threats.  The objectionable message (it is incomplete, it is without grace, repentence, and reconciliation) of Fred Phelps has not, that I've ever seen, initiated any physical violence.

Brown said Tuesday, "There are a lot of e-mails to the representative that say, 'You ought to die,' rather than, 'I am going to kill you.'

"I wouldn't characterize them as death threats," she said.

It certainly appears to be statement to instill fear.  And that was how it was received.  But that's not how it was received treated.  They take the function of a treat and intimidation.  Ror Rep. Kern to be so intimidated is not beyond reason.

What we can't conclude from this Tulsa World item is whether or not the vast amout of threats that public persons receive are all treated with this approach or if Rep. Kern is being treated differently.  If her treatment is unique, that would represent a serious problem.  But in any case it appears that the approach taken here is not one that respects the recipient.

"Violent speech" can be understood as a motivation to physical violence against another party. There are also some more abstract senses where the term might be employed. This might include words that coerce one to do indirect damage against the reputation or other assets of a third party. In any case the violent speech incites someone to damage someone else.

In the most tragic of hyperbole, Ed Brayton engaged in the same structure that Feldman, Clarkson, and Finnegan branded as "violent":

Apparently, Ford has caved in to the AFA's boycott and agreed to stop advertising in gay publications or donate money to gay advocacy groups. The AFA is pulling their boycott. Gee, maybe if Ford had agreed to beat the hell out of anyone they think might be gay riding in one of their cars, the AFA would actually urge their followers to buy Fords. This kind of crap just makes me ill.

I say that it's the same structure because he invented a violence out of thin air.

It is both ironic and sad.

It's ironic because Ed Brayton posts over at TalkToAction, Fred Clarkson's blog. Brayton committed an act that Clarkson condemned.

It's sad because Ed Brayton, an otherwise intelligent man, is engaging in a serious breach of both reason and decency.

But like the false racism complaint, this suits the Left just fine. When ethics disappear violence enters.

Nobody is forcing any religious belief system down anyone's throat. But is anyone being shut out of the political process or public life because of their faith? I don't think so. Catherine Dent gives a pretty generic plea for dealing with religious discrimination.

But her statement is also equally frightening. "... and what matters deeply to me could be an intrusion on what matters most to you." That's entirely wrong. Beliefs are not intrusive, unless you're on the radical fringe and think LBJ's 501(c)(3) rules actually had something to do with the First Amendment. It's just a way to keep people of faith from being organized, and the Left will employ taxation as the punishment for unacceptable speech. It is the Left that is destroying religious liberty by pulling out of people's hearts and Dent's position, if it were policy, would be destructive to religious liberty.

An truly liberal society cannot constrain religious liberty. That's the First Amendment.