More from Ryan Lizza’s article on Bachmann.
Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians. Her campaign is going to be a conversation about a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature.
Extreme, and not in a good way. One biggy is an evangelist and theologian called Francis Schaeffer, who
condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view. “There is only one real solution, and that’s right back where the early church was,” Schaeffer tells his audience. “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”
See, I don’t want someone like that as president. I don’t want to obey the bible.
Francis Schaeffer instructed his followers and students at L’Abri that the Bible was not just a book but “the total truth.” He was a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism, which relies on Genesis 1:26, where man is urged to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Sara Diamond, who has written several books about evangelical movements in America, has succinctly defined the philosophy that resulted from Schaeffer’s interpretation: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
Don’t want. Don’t want don’t want don’t want.
Bachmann enrolled at the new O. W. Coburn School of Law, at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Bible, not the Constitution or conventional jurisprudence, guides the curriculum. For several years, the school could not get accreditation, because students were required to sign a “code of honor” attesting to their Christian belief and commitment. The first issue of the law review, Journal of Christian Jurisprudence, explains the two goals of the school: “to equip our students with the ability to bring God’s healing power to reconcile individuals and to restore community wholeness,” and “to restore law to its historic roots in the Bible.”
Among the professors were Herbert W. Titus, a Vice-Presidential candidate of the far-right U.S. Taxpayers Party (now called the Constitution Party), and John Whitehead, who started the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal-advocacy group. The law review published essays by Schaeffer and Rousas John Rushdoony, a prominent Dominionist who has called for a pure Christian theocracy in which Old Testament law—execution for adulterers and homosexuals, for example—would be instituted.
I’m tempted to start campaigning for Mitt Romney.
Comments
41 responses to “A pure Christian theocracy”
Re the Could She Win? question–no, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but–surely she would be considered a loose cannon by the moneyed and political elite who have a big say in deciding these things?* I mean, they don’t mind backing ignorami, but they elect ignorami they can control, like Reagan and Shrub.
Don’t they?
* Don’t mean to imply I think it’s an organized, backroom conspiracy; it’s a systemic thing.
The paranoia in me wants me to start collecting guns and canned food, honestly though as scary as these people are I do not see them actually getting elected, on the other hand I don’t dismiss them Bachmann had effectively moved the Overton window to the point where Bush seems rational.
Was the moneyed and political elite able to control Shrub? Not particularly.
The moneyed and political elite found themselves unable to control the Tea Partiers that they unleashed a few years back. This uncontrollable group still has considerable momentum, and could very easily sway some Republican primaries to a candidate like Bachmann. Add to this the fact conservatives seem to know exactly how to get away with dirty campaigning and force their opposition to apologize to the conservative candidate when they attempt to respond.
This is an extremely dangerous storm brewing, and everyone should take it very seriously.
What is extraordinary about this malarkey is the extent to which law is not based on Christian principles. One of the world’s two great legal systems was wholly developed by pagans (Roman law), while its great rival, the English common law, became more humane precisely as it abandoned Christian attempts to police private life and private law. Often, when engaging in this process, the common law was forced (mainly via Lord Mansfield) to copy Roman law, sometimes indirectly, via the Code Napoleon, sometimes directly, via the law merchant (lex mercatoria).
The Romans, with very few exceptions, did not attempt to regulate private life; attempts to do so were greeted with derision, a well documented phenomenon. This is something that the jurists took so seriously that marriage was governed by contract, not by the state. A Roman registry office (officium) was for births, deaths and land title documents (pignus or hypoteca) only, not marriages.
All sorts of reasonable arguments can be made about the contribution of Christianity to Western Civilisation, but law is simply not one of them.
Little historical factiod: the Romans did their level best to stamp out the Jewish practice of stoning women for adultery, as did more enlightened members of the Sanhedrin (the baddies in the New Testament, remember them?). Both groups thought it was barbaric, as did later Jewish sages like Maimonides.
If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that Bachmann has been smoking interesting substances.
But did she inhale? There’s always the Clinton escape route.
I hope she has- she migh tstop smoking them and change her opinions. Unfortunately. I think she actually believes this stuff without pharmacological assistance.
sorry for Godwinning this thread so early, but the moneyed elite isn’t always able to control the enraged mob they’ve helped create. And when they do lose control it tends to end pretty ugly. To quote from an article about the 5 stages of fascism (about when a Point Of No Return is reached):
I thought they did, in the persons of Cheney and the neoconservative gang. He did wind up embarrassing them, though.
Points taken, ckitching and Jadehawk.
I think we should stress in particular the Dominionist aspect of her insanity, because I don’t believe most Americans, be they ever so Christian, go for that.
However, these are scary times, people are flailing, the empire is crumbling, and Presidential elections are usually decided by a very narrow margin. I agree we shouldn’t underestimate her.
They’re not interested in, or amenable to, reasonable arguments.
I think Fred Clark was on to something when he posted his analysis of the rumors about the satanic nature of the Proctor & Gamble logo. It’s a two-parter:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/10/false-witnesses-2.html – his point is that, even transparent, easily proved lies have a deeper meaning and purpose to these folks, so that they actively resist being disabused, even when presented with indisputable facts.
and i ended up forgetting to quote the second relevant part
so anyway, what’s currently going on doesn’t strictly speaking fit the pattern for fascism specifically, but it does follow the pattern of conservative elites creating an angry, regressive mob to hold on to power, and then risking to lose control of said mob, which then may destroy what’s left of democracy in a country.
A book that knows nothing of wombats, plate tectonics, bacteria and galaxies cannot be anywhere close to being “total knowledge”. Full steam ahead (backwards?) to the Dark Ages. This is scary shit. It’s right up (down?) there with the people in parts of Africa killing albinos because of the magical power they are said to posses. I hope Bachmann doesn’t get her name anywhere near a ballot.
Sometimes it seems that American politics takes place on some other planet. This is one of those times I wish it actually did…..
[…] New Yorker, via Ophelia Benson: In 1976, like many other fundamentalist Christians, the Bachmanns supported Jimmy Carter, a […]
Francis Schaeffer’s son wrote a book “Crazy for God” about his father and his own work with his father. There’s an interesting interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air from 2008.
http://www.npr.org/2008/12/09/97998654/pro-life-and-in-favor-of-keeping-abortion-legal
Bachmann will deliver the payload, though–non interference, which means no regulations and no taxes. The financial sector will remain a casino, and the rich will continue to pay the lowest taxes in the world. Bad news for everyone in the long term, but the moneyed think only as far as the next quarter. Besides, the pensions they’re gambling with belong to little people, and who cares about them? Taxes are for little people, as Leona Helmsly quite rightly pointed out (she got caught only because she bragged.) And the Tea Party will see to it that taxes will only be for little people, even though they are themselves little people.
The Tea Party continually rewards cynicism with insight, and so I do not think any amount of cynicism with regards to them is excessive. I wish I could be proven wrong, but so far they have exceeded all my worst expectations.
I think that this sort of bizarre politics is pretty characteristic of empires (I use that term a bit loosely I admit) when they start to contract, the circuses get harder to stage and the bread gets less flour and more sawdust. The US has gone from being a global superpower in charge of half the world to one in full economic retreat and in hock up to its eyeballs. This affects the marginalised first and hardest, and they have been prey for quack politicians ever since Adam was a boy.
But then again and as I recall, Ronald Reagan believed Jesus Christ could make his return in the context of a nuclear war. (Bomb goes off stage centre; enter JC stage right; Republicans cheer, Democrats flee. Something like that.) And I think it was Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior who said that it would be best if all the national parks were strip-mined, because all the signs were there that Christ was about to return, after which none of that would matter anyway.
But Catch 22: these evangelical hoons would make such a mess of the world that Christ would not want to return to it anyway. Too hard.
He’d probably start looking for another planet. He’s probably got billions out there to choose from.
I dunno who said it first but… Bachmann tried pot in college but she didn’t exhale.
The thing I had to laugh about was someone (not here but somewhere else) who claimed that Michele Bachmann was toning down her Christianity to appeal to Libertarian voters. There is hardly any difference. The Christian Reconstructionist movement intersects with the Libertarian movement in people like Gary North. I wonder how many Ron Paul supporters realize that Ron Paul doesn’t believe evolution is true.
Daniel Lafave
I’m guessing they don’t care. They’ll just deny that it’s relevant. I once argued with the Facebook friend of a Facebook friend about Paul, and when I pointed out that Paul was anti-choice and dicey on the subject of the separation of church and state, he said something like, “that’s not an important part of his message.”
Just last Sunday I had occasion to talk to another Libertarian friend. When someone asked him about why Libertarians tend to back conservatives, and wasn’t he worried about, say, gay rights, he said he thought financial issues were more important because “they impact everybody”.
Sorry if this is O/T. But there are a lot of Libertarians in our loosely so-called movement and they could be a wildcard. I worry about them.
It’ll be Perry and Bachmann on the Dominionist ticket.
they won’t win, this time, but I can’t help but think of Rick Perry as Nehemiah Scudder.
So much for “cuddly” christianity being so much saner than nasty, horrid islam. If these people get their way and ever get power again, they will show that christianity is just as barbaric and cruel.
Jafafa @17, you win the internets for today.
The funny thing about Shaeffer’s position (if funny is the right word) is that prior to the “influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism” expressing the opinion that “only the Bible was the final authority” would get you burned alive in most of Europe. After all, Catholic dogma holds that the Pope is the final authority on spiritual matters and if you have a theological question you should ask your priest, not read the Bible.
I find it passing curious that Shaeffer is effectively advocating a world in which he would die screaming.
Well if they all really want to live according to the bible they need to give away all their possessions to the poor and follow in the footsteps of Yeshue – while not eating shellfish, making fire on shabat or wearing cotton and wool at the same time. Somehow I think it’s that first requirement they find really hard to meet.
I’m always intrigued by references to the early church. How early we talking here? Does Shaeffer mean a time before the latter part of the fourth century when the bible was cobbled together by a political conference under the aegis of the roman emperor? A time when there was no bible? The “early church believed only the bible (which they didn’t have yet) was the only authority”? Even the most cursory reading of church history would disprove this notion very quickly. But then, these people never hesitate to lie when it suits their purpose. And it is lying because they do know the facts….
My close friend is a Republican, of the Ronald Reagan school. Socially, she’s quite liberal, and is no friend of religion of any kind.
The other evening at dinner, I asked her what she thought of Michelle Bachmann. She said she didn’t know that much about her, and she has no intention of paying any attention to anything she says until or unless Bachmann is a serious contender for the Republican ticket.
I must have had that gobsmacked look on my face. She pointed out that there are loons on my side of the aisle to whom I pay no attention either unless there’s a good reason to do so. She thinks that Bachmann is getting a lot of attention from the media because the media likes its “characters”. I was wondering how she could know that Bachmann was a “character” but also say that she’s paying her no attention.
So yeah. My personal observation is that they don’t care/don’t think it’s relevant. Gah.
Really? Considering how easily these people with this idea got to do this, I’d have said they did a fearsome job.
Rick Perry is a frightening prospect, o’ course. Rarely are Presidents quite such brazen killers.
I’ll bring this comment across from the other Bachmann thread, because it’s relevant when it comes to the current transformation of US conservatism.
Re: Schaeffer, I found this article to be a very interesting read:
http://blog.au.org/2008/01/08/appealing-apostate-prodigal-son-frank-schaeffer-roasts-religious-right/
Last fall, I had a conversation with a friend over drinks about anarchism vs. libertarianism. He’s an anarchist; my dad is a libertarian (both of self-defined). My friend commented that a lot of people who are more socialist say that their political beliefs are close to his when they really aren’t, except that both groups tend to be on the political left. I asked my friend why anarchists tend to show up in lefty political movements, but libertarians tend to show up in right-wing movements.
He’s not sure, although I know he’s discussed this with other people before. I think it’s because libertarians focus more on financial issues and anarchists on social issues. Plus, anarchists tend to be very anti-corporation and somewhat anti-capitalism; whereas libertarians are much more pro-business, pro-free marketism, and pro-capitalism.
Can’t speak for anarchists, but the libertarians I know used to make it clear they had no expectations of having their political wishes fulfilled. It was entirely about supporting who could do the most damage to the ‘other sides’ goals.
I was thinking that it does no good for a Republican to point out that there are crazies on the other side, too. There are. The difference is that the crazies on the left are not serious contenders; they are unelectable. The crazies on the right, however, ARE electable, and that’s what’s scary.
That said, the way it is now, I’m not sure it matters much which side gets to sit on the throne. The system itself is dysfunctional, and until people stop voting for one side of the duopoly, nothing’s really going to change. A serious third choice is what is needed; someone who has no stake in maintaining the status quo, someone who can rid the system of corruption. I’ve heard that the average congressman spends about 85% of his time fundraising. Right now, no Democrat or Republican is going to do anything to change that. Sure, Bachmann is nuts, but a Democrat is not the antidote, it’s just more of the same.
There’s something to be said for trying to hold the line even if you can’t advance. Maybe if you hold out long enough the landscape will change? It did for the Tea Party (they maybe ‘new’ but I doubt their feelings or political wants are).
Honestly though, I’m entirely with you. When voting for a party is done as an act of self preservation, something has gone horribly wrong.
I don’t think Bush bothered the elites too much – I got the impression the point was to have a Zaphod Beeblebrox candidate.
I hope this Schaeffer isn’t reading the Bible in english.
“And I think it was Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior who said that it would be best if all the national parks were strip-mined, because all the signs were there that Christ was about to return, after which none of that would matter anyway.”
The quote attributed to him was something like, “After the last tree is felled, Christ will return.” But he insists he never said it, as here in an op-ed from 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001333.html
What is true is that he had a dreadful conversation record (despite his implying the contrary in this article) and is an insane arch-bigot.
oh bloody hell, she’s won the Iowa Straw Poll:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/13/do-or-die-time-for-gop-candidates-at-iowa-straw-poll/
[…] more worried about her fundagelical pro-slavery […]
Oh boy. A picture of a white woman politician looking like she’s sucking a huge brown cock.