Earlier this week Pat Robertson's legal mouthpiece Jay Sekulow
explained the animus behind Christian conservatives' political antics.
According to Sekulow, Christians have a "cultural mandate" to control
society.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-100896.html
EverLastingGodStopper

October 28, 2004, 09:27 PM
From the Express-Times (PA)

11\
39130.xml)
Dominion theology totalitarian scheme

Earlier this week Pat Robertson's legal mouthpiece Jay Sekulow
explained the animus behind Christian conservatives' political antics.
According to Sekulow, Christians have a "cultural mandate" to control
society. This mandate supposedly dates back to the Book of Genesis
when God issued the command to take dominion over the earth; hence the
name dominion theology. It was obvious that Sekulow wasn't too versed
on the details of this idiotic doctrine (he admitted he's no
theologian) so I'll fill in gaps.

Dominion theologians trace their movement to Cornelius Van Til, who
came up with an unorthodox method of Christian apologetics. Using a
Calvinist premise, Van Til taught that there is no moral common ground
between Christians and nonbelievers. Another theologian, Rousas
Rushdoony, later took Van Til's premise to its logical conclusion --
that because of this infinite moral divide the Christian inherits a
divine right to rule over everyone else. The fact that the command to
take dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29) was given to Adam four
millennia before the Church even existed doesn't stop God's bullies
from using it as a ready-made excuse to ram a theocratic nightmare
down our throats. Two weeks earlier dominion preacher Rod Parsley said
it all when he said: "It's not our job to fit in, it's our job to take
over."

Anyone who believes that he or she has a divine right to rule over
even one other human being is a raving psychotic who can justify any
atrocity in God's name. Since divine lordship is the systematic
theology behind the Christian dominion movement, there is no moral or
intellectual dishonesty in treating it as a Nazi-style totalitarian
scheme in political discourse.

<Author's Name Edited>"JVG"
Darby's meme is spreading. The "Dominionist" label is being used by
others.
Toto
October 28, 2004, 10:01 PM
I tried to track down that Sekulow quote. I found this on the AU site
(http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5849&abbr=cs_) from
2000:

Robertson's top lawyer, Jay Sekulow, sounded a militant note at the
NRB convention. Speaking to the public policy breakfast Feb. 7, the
American Center for Law and Justice counsel said Christians are
compelled by Scripture to get involved with politics.

Quoting Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper
(http://www.kuyper.org/kuyper/), Sekulow said, "There is not one
square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not
say, 'This is mine; this belongs to me.' We have a cultural mandate."

Continued Sekulow, "Jesus demands every aspect of our creation, every
aspect of our culture. None of it is without his control and authority."

Sekulow's call to action was countered at the breakfast by
conservative columnist Cal Thomas. In a rare NRB acknowledgment of
dissent among Christians about the relationship between politics and
faith, Thomas was allowed to defend his view that overemphasis on
political activity by evangelicals has hurt the spread of the Gospel.
Thomas and Michigan pastor Ed Dobson (no relation to James Dobson)
last year wrote a controversial book, Blinded by Might, that made the
same point.

"When the church aligns itself with a political party," Thomas told
the NRB, "it isn't the state that's corrupted, it's the church."

Charging that conservative churches have become "an appendage of the
Republican Party," Thomas warned, "Too many of us give lip service to
the Gospel while spending most of our energies on politics."

The columnist said voting Republican is no assurance of conservative
policies or morality, noting that Earl Warren and other liberal
Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents. He reminded
the crowd that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich "kept the Contract
with America, but sadly violated contracts with two wives and now
consorts openly with a woman to whom he is not married."

Thomas even challenged the widely held Religious Right view that
America was founded as a Christian nation. "What does history really
say about our roots?" he asked. "Were our founders mostly saved men
who were followers of Jesus Christ? A few were. But many were deists,
free thinkers and quite a few, including George Washington, were
Masons. Only 10 percent of the populace attended church at the time of
the American Revolution."

The 2000 conference is reported here
(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_3_11/ai_61402621):

One of my favorite theologians, Abraham Kuyper, was also a Prime
Minister. He founded a university and edited a newspaper, and he said,
"There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus
Christ does not cry out, `This is mine, this belongs to me.'"

We have a cultural mandate. It's not that Kuyper or today's religious
followers of politics are "blinded by might," as Cal's book title puts
it. They are simply taking their cultural mandate seriously. Jesus
commanded us to love our neighbor. Part of that love of neighbor is
being engaged in these political issues.
EverLastingGodStopper
October 29, 2004, 08:44 AM
From the October 29, 2004 Atheist News Service letter:
For those readers who are only recently being introduced to
Dominionism, Katherine Yurica is one of the best known Dominionist
watchers. Dominionism knows no political party boundaries, but of
course with the Republicans having the edge in power now, the
spotlight tends to point to those. Don't be fooled into thinking that
Dominionists are not or cannot be Democratics, too. For example, the
White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (a program Mr. Kerry has
promised to enhance) is headed by a Democrat - Jim Towey. If Mr. Kerry
becomes president, the Dominionists won't be eradicated - The fight
remains the same.
You can check out Katherine Yurica's site here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/index.html

In the story featured at the top of today's Yurica Report, the word
"dominionists" is used often.
Shake


You are invited to check out the following:

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]

HRSepCnS á Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

***************************************************************

. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .


****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-100896.html
EverLastingGodStopper
October 28, 2004, 09:27 PM
From the Express-Times (PA)

11\
39130.xml)
Dominion theology totalitarian scheme

Earlier this week Pat Robertson's legal mouthpiece Jay Sekulow
explained the animus behind Christian conservatives' political antics.
According to Sekulow, Christians have a "cultural mandate" to control
society. This mandate supposedly dates back to the Book of Genesis
when God issued the command to take dominion over the earth; hence the
name dominion theology. It was obvious that Sekulow wasn't too versed
on the details of this idiotic doctrine (he admitted he's no
theologian) so I'll fill in gaps.

Dominion theologians trace their movement to Cornelius Van Til, who
came up with an unorthodox method of Christian apologetics. Using a
Calvinist premise, Van Til taught that there is no moral common ground
between Christians and nonbelievers. Another theologian, Rousas
Rushdoony, later took Van Til's premise to its logical conclusion --
that because of this infinite moral divide the Christian inherits a
divine right to rule over everyone else. The fact that the command to
take dominion

millennia before the Church even existed doesn't stop God's bullies
from using it as a ready-made excuse to ram a theocratic nightmare
down our throats. Two weeks earlier dominion preacher Rod Parsley said
it all when he said: "It's not our job to fit in, it's our job to take
over."

Anyone who believes that he or she has a divine right to rule over
even one other human being is a raving psychotic who can justify any
atrocity in God's name. Since divine lordship is the systematic
theology behind the Christian dominion movement, there is no moral or
intellectual dishonesty in treating it as a Nazi-style totalitarian
scheme in political discourse.

<Author's Name Edited>"JVG"
Darby's meme is spreading. The "Dominionist" label is being used by
others.
Toto
October 28, 2004, 10:01 PM
I tried to track down that Sekulow quote. I found this on the AU site
(http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5849&abbr=cs_) from
2000:

Robertson's top lawyer, Jay Sekulow, sounded a militant note at the
NRB convention. Speaking to the public policy breakfast Feb. 7, the
American Center for Law and Justice counsel said Christians are
compelled by Scripture to get involved with politics.

Quoting Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper
(http://www.kuyper.org/kuyper/), Sekulow said, "There is not one
square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not
say, 'This is mine; this belongs to me.' We have a cultural mandate."

Continued Sekulow, "Jesus demands every aspect of our creation, every
aspect of our culture. None of it is without his control and authority."

Sekulow's call to action was countered at the breakfast by
conservative columnist Cal Thomas. In a rare NRB acknowledgment of
dissent among Christians about the relationship between politics and
faith, Thomas was allowed to defend his view that overemphasis on
political activity by evangelicals has hurt the spread of the Gospel.
Thomas and Michigan pastor Ed Dobson (no relation to James Dobson)
last year wrote a controversial book, Blinded by Might, that made the
same point.

"When the church aligns itself with a political party," Thomas told
the NRB, "it isn't the state that's corrupted, it's the church."

Charging that conservative churches have become "an appendage of the
Republican Party," Thomas warned, "Too many of us give lip service to
the Gospel while spending most of our energies on politics."

The columnist said voting Republican is no assurance of conservative
policies or morality, noting that Earl Warren and other liberal
Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents. He reminded
the crowd that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich "kept the Contract
with America, but sadly violated contracts with two wives and now
consorts openly with a woman to whom he is not married."

Thomas even challenged the widely held Religious Right view that
America was founded as a Christian nation. "What does history really
say about our roots?" he asked. "Were our founders mostly saved men
who were followers of Jesus Christ? A few were. But many were deists,
free thinkers and quite a few, including George Washington, were
Masons. Only 10 percent of the populace attended church at the time of
the American Revolution."

The 2000 conference is reported here
(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_3_11/ai_61402621):

One of my favorite theologians, Abraham Kuyper, was also a Prime
Minister. He founded a university and edited a newspaper, and he said,
"There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus
Christ does not cry out, `This is mine, this belongs to me.'"

We have a cultural mandate. It's not that Kuyper or today's religious
followers of politics are "blinded by might," as Cal's book title puts
it. They are simply taking their cultural mandate seriously. Jesus
commanded us to love our neighbor. Part of that love of neighbor is
being engaged in these political issues.
EverLastingGodStopper
October 29, 2004, 08:44 AM
From the October 29, 2004 Atheist News Service letter:
For those readers who are only recently being introduced to
Dominionism, Katherine Yurica is one of the best known Dominionist
watchers. Dominionism knows no political party boundaries, but of
course with the Republicans having the edge in power now, the
spotlight tends to point to those. Don't be fooled into thinking that
Dominionists are not or cannot be Democratics, too. For example, the
White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (a program Mr. Kerry has
promised to enhance) is headed by a Democrat - Jim Towey. If Mr. Kerry
becomes president, the Dominionists won't be eradicated - The fight
remains the same.
You can check out Katherine Yurica's site here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/index.html

In the story featured at the top of today's Yurica Report, the word
"dominionists" is used often.
Shake


You are invited to check out the following:

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]

HRSepCnS á Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

***************************************************************

. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .


****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************