Posted by: ST on August 15, 2011 at 7:34 pm

You heard it at the Daily Beast first:

With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional.

Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing. But because it seems so outré, getting ordinary people to take it seriously can be difficult. Most writers, myself included, who explore it have been called paranoid. In a contemptuous 2006 First Things review of several books, including Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy, and my own Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote, “the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era.”

Now, however, we have the most theocratic Republican field in American history, and suddenly, the concept of Dominionism is reaching mainstream audiences. Writing about Bachmann in The New Yorker this month, Ryan Lizza spent several paragraphs explaining how the premise fit into the Minnesota congresswoman’s intellectual and theological development. And a recent Texas Observer cover story on Rick Perry examined his relationship with the New Apostolic Reformation, a Dominionist variant of Pentecostalism that coalesced about a decade ago. “[W]hat makes the New Apostolic Reformation movement so potent is its growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government,” wrote Forrest Wilder. Its members “believe Christians—certain Christians—are destined to not just take ‘dominion’ over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world.”

In many ways, Dominionism is more a political phenomenon than a theological one. It cuts across Christian denominations, from stern, austere sects to the signs-and-wonders culture of modern megachurches. Think of it like political Islamism, which shapes the activism of a number of antagonistic fundamentalist movements, from Sunni Wahabis in the Arab world to Shiite fundamentalists in Iran.

LOL.  You know what tells me this is a bunch of over-sensationalized garbage? This:  If Bachmann and Perry really were proponents of a a so-called Christian “political Islamism”, liberals like the ones who write for the Daily Beast would embrace it with open arms.  After all, it’s liberals who’ve been telling us since 9-11 that we should be “tolerant” of Islam, right?  You betcha.

Newsbusters’ Ken Shepherd points out that the writer – Michelle Goldberg – needs to get a clue … in more ways than one:

Goldberg set about trying to tar Bachmann and Perry by association with Dominionists, but in doing so, Goldberg exposed some of her ignorance about religious matters:

The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies…

Pentecostalism has “magic”?! That would be news to millions of Pentecostals who strongly oppose any magic arts as counterfeit or demonic spiritual activity.

Apparently Ken hasn’t gotten the memo that the Daily Beast, home to Meghan McCain – among other esteemed and distinguished luminaries,  is The Place to Go when it comes to insightful religious commentary …

Furthermore, what’s another good reason to consider this nothing more than a cheap, bigoted hitpiece against religious conservatives? The fact that the Daily Beast was co-founded by Tina Brown.  The Daily Beast and Newsweek are now The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.  Tina Brown is the editor-in-chief of both of them.  Which means Tina Brown is responsible for what goes on the cover of Newsweek, like the “Queen of Rage” cover we saw last week which deliberately featured a picture of Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann looking like a wild-eyed crazy woman.  The Boston Globe’s Alan Wirzbicki writes of Brown:

If Brown’s chosen role is to outrage, she succeeded with the Bachmann cover. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin lambasted the magazine for “bottom-of-of-the-barrel moonbat photo cliches about conservative female public figures.” Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, called the cover sexist, saying it would never have been done to a man.

Brown has no problem using the sisterhood to reclaim the limelight she once commanded as editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker.

As recently pointed out, since Brown became editor, most Newsweek covers now feature women. She started with a decorously-dressed Hillary Clinton gazing out over the headline: “Hillary’s War.” Then she urged readers to “Meet America’s Next Billionaires” — twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen twins. A flattering take on “Kate the Great” set everyone up for this subsequent cover hullabaloo: Through the power of Photoshop, Brown imagined Princess Diana at 50 striding confidently next to her daughter-in-law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

Creepy or provocative? Who cares, if it’s buzz you’re after. But, if readers are what Newsweek is after, Brown’s mission is still incomplete. According to the New York Times, Newsweek’s overall circulation fell 5 percent to just over 1.5 million since Brown took over. Sales of single issues have picked up, lending some crediblity to the cover shock strategy she is obviously embracing.

And apparently “shock covers” aren’t the only type of “shock” journalism Brown is embracing, as evidenced by the Daily Beast piece.  

It’s funny how, in the nearly 30 years that Gov. Perry has been an elected official in one capacity or the other that the state of Texas has not become the Theocratic Bastion of America, isn’t it?  Also funny is how Rep. Bachmann, who has served as an elected official since the year 2000, hasn’t used her various elected positions to push a theocratic agenda in either the Minnesota state legislature or the United States House.   You’d think both of these savvy politicos who apparently are fanatical Christians would have figured out by now how to  use their respective positions in government to bend their respective constituencies to their religious will via the form of  “political Islamism” Michelle Goldberg suggests they practice, “stealthily” or otherwise.

Hate to say it, but Toldjah So.    Be on the lookout for more of this “acceptable” mainstream/liberal opinion media anti-Christian bigotry as we get closer to GOP primary time.  It’ll get even worse if Bachmann or Perry win the nomination, so gird your loins – and be prepared to explain to the casual political observer (or even the clueless ones, if you have the patience) how hit pieces like this one are nothing more than poisonous hyped-up scare tactics with not much truth to them, designed to smear the names of Christian conservative candidates in a way that would NEVER be acceptable were it to be a similar piece about an actual radical religion: Islam.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


17 Responses to “THE THEOCRACY IS COMING!!!!!!!”


  1. Carlos says:

    It’s odd that the leftists cry so loud and so long about setting up a theocracy when in fact that is exactly what they wish to do.

    Simply put, it is projection on their part, and the only thing they object to isn’t a theocracy but that it’s not THEIR theocracy that’s being “instituted.”

    Like I’ve said many times before, if a theocracy was the objective of American Christian politics it would have been done 200 years ago.

    They really need to get a life outside their tiny, tunnel-visioned unicorn field.

  2. Great White Rat says:

    This is all part of the left’s mindset of hating everything western civilization in general, and America in particular, was founded upon. The judeo-christian ethic is under attack for precisely that reason.

    Consider this:

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    You might also have run across this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..”

    That’s maddening to the liberals. To them, all rights are granted to the people by the state, and liberals are of course an elite class that has a duty to run the state and thereby dictate to the unwashed masses. The idea that some other entity is superior to the state and grants people rights by virtue of existing is anathema. If people begin to think they are not beholden to the state, they might get out of control and start to demand terroristic things, like living within the budget or observing the Constitution.

    The more important God becomes, the less important the state becomes. Therefore God must be fought whenever possible. Why do you think liberals like to edit “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

  3. Great White Rat says:

    Something else occurs to me. Here’s the biggest irony: You can dump on Christians (all denominations – currently it’s in vogue to bash evangelicals) and Jews all you want and the libs will piously defend your freedom of speech. Hollywood, especially, does it all the time.

    But liberals do not reflexively oppose all religions. If you point out that the Fort Hood terrorist called himself a “soldier of Allah” you will be accused of jumping to conclusions and branded an islamophobe.

    The good news is that the left has finally found a religion it can tolerate. The bad news is that it is radical islam.

    It’s telling that the leftists who bend over backwards to remind us that there is so much good in islam are the same people who use every excuse to denigrate and mock Christianity.

  4. Tango says:

    ….this sort of smear (directed at Bachman and Perry) was as predictable as the sunrise. And I have little doubt the frantic rants will get much, much louder. Especially the closer we get to Nov 2012.

  5. WarEagle82 says:

    Look for McCain to chime in any time. He has hated EVIL CHRISTIANS since the 2000 South Carolina Primary.

  6. Carlos says:

    And a new one for you: Alaska’s 3-person congressional delegation all received packages containing powder. As it turns out, the powder was harmless, but the leftist blogosphere is gonna go wild accusing TEA party Christian extremist radicals of sending those packages, and hell won’t have it until it is discovered eventually that they were sent either by some disaffected leftist or some totally non-political loon.

    Then, and only then, will the story die the death it so richly deserves, except for us on the right who keep pointing out the inconvenient truth that most such actions are done by the left or Islamists.

  7. daveinboca says:

    Tina Brown and her band of mindless ink-stained wretches are assembling enough material for a remake of Citizen Kane that could be called Citizen Brown…! You know, the old Marxist line about history being tragedy the first time, the second time as farce. Newsweak’s cover of Bachmann last week demonstrated just how silly Tina’s senseless taste has devolved since she was s-canned from The New Yorker.

  8. ml says:

    Karl Rove said on Fox News last night that Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rep. Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin might get into the race after September. Christie said he is not going to run for President; maybe in 2016. I am disappointed in the Republican Party because of the Tea Party is part of it. That is the problem. I am not the member of the Tea Party. I am a Republican conservative. If we don’t find the right candidate that we really like, we will lose the election in 2012. I think Rick Perry is a better choice than Romney and Bachmann.

  9. PE says:

    Could be this is part of the reason why all those christians are running around
    with explosives under their togas and building cathedrals in fresh craters of their making.

  10. Paul says:

    ” In Adam’s fall we sinned all. “

  11. Tom TB says:

    The only theocracy I’m concerned about is the one 0bama seems to embrace..Islam. How far could a woman like Tina Brown go under sharia law? She wouldn’t be able to stand the mandatory dress code!

  12. Susan says:

    Democrats can openly promote their State=God ‘Marxistwing Christian values’ ie Nancy Pelosi/Kennedy family Universal health care is a God-given right, Rev. Jim Wallis and his State=God Government charity “Circle of Protection” designed to save State=God Government programs in the name of saving the poor perpetually impoverished by the State=God Government, FDR’s Theology of Social Security which forced taxpayers to tithe to Government rather than God, Johnson’s Great Society etc, etc etc yet somehow it is those Christians who place their faith and their tithes in God’s hands rather than the Government’s hands who are ridiculed, mocked and shamed, and accused as ‘theocrats’!

    Democrats are abhorrant in their manner of abusing Christianty and the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sole purpose of gaining power however equally are Republicans who allow Bibical Christians to be beaten to a pulp by the State=God Marxistwing Christians up until Republicans need campaign cash and votes.

    I would leave the Republican Party if not for the importance of primaries. I certainly would not join the Democrat Party which has turned its face away from God and become its own State=God religion to be worshiped by Government force.

  13. Neo says:

    Hey, he had a bit of bad luck. Who would have thought it .. bad luck.
    I don’t remember ever reading in the newspapers or seeing on TV anything about “bad luck” before.
    Bush never had “bad luck.” Neither did Clinton or Carter.

    “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God” … with “bad luck”

    I guess only a “sort of god” has “bad luck.”

    NOBODY expects the DC Inquisition!
    Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Tea Party …. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.

  14. tominhouston says:

    As the campaign progresses I’m sure that some dangerously immaginative MSM type is going try to convince us that Bachmann, Perry,, are trying to impose a Christian version of Sharia (there is no such thing) on the country.
    As to the Bachmann photo on Newsweek, combining just the right photo and composing just the right caption together to contrive whatever message one may choose to convey about Michelle Bachmann could take some work . . . Debbie Wasserman-Schultz . . . little or no effort required.

  15. Carlos says:

    Every time I see a photo of Sgt. Schultz I have to rinse my eyes. She’s not only b*tt-ugly, she enhances that ugliness with the vicious look God graced her with that she thinks is a smile.

  16. George Robinson says:

    Here goes guys, another note from Captain Reality. All the guys(generic-to include Michele and Sarah) on our side are Christian or close but none are fanatic. None can do anything particularly nor would they try to proselytize or legalize. The left is always trying some of that stupid stuff and would have us pray to Gaia if they could. I am pretty sure Perry is a real believer, I have known him medium well for years and never heard him get out of line. He never even mentioned some gay rights initiative we had on the ballot a few years ago. He knows me to be agnostic and just grumbles.