N&O columnist likens Christian conservatives to ISIS

crapThe McClatchy holding in our state capital is apparently taking the MSNBC route.  Abysmal ratings / viewership / circulation / ad rates.  Going full-throttle to the left — aiming for that cliff up ahead. 

There’s been a real pattern lately of leftist beating up on Christians — painting them as bigots, hatemongers, out-and-out kooks.  Well, check out THIS guy — a divinity school grad and former head of education for some regional Baptist Church associations — and his babbling in today’s paper:

As a nation, our attention has been captured by the ominous threat of ISIS extremism and its vicious enforcement of Islamic Sharia law. Meanwhile, few have taken notice of the stealth movement of Christian Dominionism, or Christian Reconstructionism, taking root inside the Republican Party.

In simple terms, Dominionism proposes that Christians have the God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. In other words, Christian Sharia law. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, like Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary North and David Chilton, it has long had an influence on the Religious Right’s education and political organizing.

Ah, ISIS torturing and murdering innocent people.  Christians seeking protection from harrassment by government bureaucrats because of their beliefs. (*Yes, the similarities are striking.*)  

Yeah, this guy is typical of those who eventually get their hands on the money you put in the plate every Sunday.

And, as far as this Dominionism stuff goes, who can actually point to any evidence that this movement is taking over the Republican Party?  (Anyone?  Bueller?) 

What is this guy’s real point?

It is not surprising that Ted Cruz, a prime example of Dominionism, chose to announce his run for the presidency of the United States at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Cruz’s father says his son will bring the world to the “end of times” and was born to this purpose. […]charm

Ah, OK.  This pinko is scared to death of señor Cruz.    Barack Obama’s dad was off-limits. So was his preacher.  But doggone if we’re not going to go ape over Cruz the senior.    The only reference, outside of this column, to this dominionism stuff is in far-left kook web sites like this and this that babble about Zionists and The Illuminati.  

McClatchy’s columnist goes on to fill us in about this sinister takeover of the GOP — and eventually — THE WORLD:

The goals of Dominionism are reducing the federal government in size and power, having churches assume responsibility for welfare and education and having the U.S. Constitution conform to biblical law. Specifically, Dominionism says:

  •   The use of the death penalty should be greatly expanded to include adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution and to those who perform abortions.

I can find leftists who want to kill people who cut down trees or butcher chickens.  What is this guy’s point?  MORE:

  •   The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs and economic theories should be derived from the Bible.
  •   Income taxes should be eliminated. (No Internal Revenue Service!)

No IRS ?????  (The horror!)  MORE:   

How have such radical religious concepts been able to impact the fringes of the Republican Party and find some degree of acceptance within the core of the GOP?


Listen carefully to or read the words of politicians such as Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Sarah Palin and you will hear tones of Christian Dominionism. Go to a Tea Party website and you will find the same.

Christian Dominionists leave no room for other views or policies, and religious freedom is for Christians only and their brand of Christianity.

No room for opposing views?  You mean like how the gay-stapo reacts in response to people who don’t give in to their every demand? MORE:

[…] Have we, as a people, forgotten the wisdom of our founding fathers? President Thomas Jefferson, in 1802, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of the state of Connecticut to answer its questions concerning church/state issues. President Jefferson’s letter contained the following famous and wise words, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Today within the Republican Party, there are those who seek to distort the true meaning of the separation of church and state as an effort to secularize our nation. Calls for declaring the United States a Christian nation and making Christianity the official religion of America are moving forward at the state and national levels.

Lest we forget, the Constitution of the United States declares that we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Ah, finishing  up by twisting Jefferson into a pretzel. Jefferson and the rest of The Founders had a vision of a government that would leave people alone to practice their religion as they wish — without fear of ostracism, humiliation, imprisonment, torture, or death — unlike the experience in England and much of western Europe.

Again, this guy went to divinity school and had a position of authority in the senior ranks of the Baptist Church. THAT is scary.

8 thoughts on “N&O columnist likens Christian conservatives to ISIS

  1. There you go again, the reporter is using propaganda to appeal to the low information reader whup up the crowd against people of faith, and it works too. Certainly he knows that the GOP hates Christians as much as the the looney left does. It hurs the New Republican Brand to associate the party with Christians.

  2. The idiot who wrote this column knows nothing about Baptists, the Republican Party, or American history in general. He certainly knows nothing about theology. He is apparently a tired old liberal unable to make the Moron Monday marches and chooses instead to put his psychobabble in print form. Only a pseudo-paper like the N&O would even print this rubbish.

  3. Actually, this was probably sanctioned by the Republican Party directly or indirectly to write the column to whip up the church goers into a lather who are still hanging onto the belief that the Republican Party is still aligned with their Christian beliefs and so they would scratch off a few more checks. In doing so they believe that the only hope to Save America from the evil Democrats is by supporting the Republicans. A choice between fascism or Fascism. What a predicament. Some Republican political consultant or strategist probably cooked it up. It’s interesting they choose to single out Ted Cruz in the piece, isn’t he the Tea Party favorite? It’s called soft money, it drifts in and precludes a political race to influence opinion. As history has repeated itself over and over, the Republican Establishment is trying to influence the public opinion into believing that anyone who isn’t their guy is just not a good choice.

    Who’s responsible for this? You are if you’re still writing checks to the Republican Party.

  4. This clown must have been kicked out of the Baptist Church. Liberals don’t last long in leadership positions with the Baptists. In addition, he knows little or nothing about the Tea Party, American History, or the GOP. Both the GOP and Tea Party are open to all individuals.

    Concerning the wish of the GOP to abolish the IRS, how pleasant a thought!! Maybe conservative organizations would be treated fairly for a change.

    N&O wasted ink on this clown!!

  5. The IRS is fine for the future IF and as long has there is no taxing of income but instead a consumption tax. “We the people” will NEVER gain control of OUR gov’t as long as there exist a system of taxing income. 1913 was a bad year for America. It yielded both the income tax and the Fed Reserve. At that point ” we the people” were rendered sheeple. That bad year led us to the financial wreck we find ourselves in today. After the s- – t hits the fan and I firmly believe it is, in the form of a total financial meltdown, maybe then there will evolve a system where by the POTUS and the U S congress are not owned lock stock and barrel by the central bankers who are the money scientists and ultimate power mongers.

  6. BTW the #2 plank of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO says it all. An income tax system is a must according to Karl.

  7. I agree with Chip Wood–this guy is definitely no longer a Baptist. No modern day Baptist would write such weird stuff.

  8. So… huh?

    Looking over the “goals” of this subversive movement I see listed:
    – reducing the federal government in size and power,
    – having churches assume responsibility for welfare and education
    – Income taxes should be eliminated. (No Internal Revenue Service!)

    Those are “good” things. I think #3 is kind of a part of #1… the government certainly doesnt need “more” money. And for #2, more reliance on the many *voluntary* actions of individuals, rather than a one-size-fits-all, forced re-distribution from one group to another group, certainly works for me as a broad goal too. I dont particularly care if free individuals choose to get together and help others, even when the basis of their association is something I’m not interested in.

    As a free-market, libertarian-ish atheist (we arent all Communists), I’m absolutely supportive of individuals being allowed more domain over their own affairs, even if they choose to do so on terms and in manners I dont necessarily agree with myself. My agreement with the origin of their motivations isnt really a valid criteria.

    But these other goals, like “having the U.S. Constitution conform to biblical law” and this HUGE expansion of the death penalty… is all that a part of Ted Cruz’s platform?? He being the “prime” example of this “movement” and all… I’m pretty sure I woulda noticed if Cruz was calling for the death penalty against idolatry and blasphemy.

    From the article: “Lest we forget, the Constitution of the United States declares that we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.”

    I entirely agree. But, “freedom” means that people may exercise their own freedom in ways I dont always agree with. The recent examples over these “religious liberty” arguments, and more broadly, as seen in the general Democrat Party big-government agenda… it all runs pretty counter to that basic notion of “freedom” of conscience.

    On a side note, man – the N&O is really racing downhill. Ugh. 🙂

Comments are closed.