For some reason, I’m getting annoyed at the way the news is describing Speaker Bosma’s litigation efforts against the District Court’s ruling that he was violating the First Amendment rights of the citizens of Indiana by permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official business of Indiana’s House of Representatives.
A legal battle over the content of Statehouse prayer continues to escalate, as Speaker Brian C. Bosma has appealed a federal court ruling that restricts the content of prayers offered during Indiana House proceedings.
The thing is, he appealed the ruling back in December. No escalation has “continued.” He merely filed a court brief in the litigation he initiated when he filed the appeal. It’s entirely appropriate to describe the content of his brief, but it strikes me as vaguely sensationalist to describe the activity as somehow unusual or an elevation of the conflict. (Marcia Oddi at the Indiana Law Blog had a similar reaction.)
I haven’t read the brief, but from reading the news reports, Speaker Bosma’s central point seems to be unchanged. By ignoring the critical fact that the prayers at issue are government speech, he continues to insist that the First Amendment limits the rights of citizens against their government instead of vice versa.
Doug,
Clearly Bosma is going back on his word and escalating the Statehouse prayer issue which has alread become a national joke because having pandered to the Dominionists in the past he is now beholden to them and they are not going to let Bosma forget it. From what I understand Bosma is a pretty slick attorney who is well aware that the First Amendment’s establishment clause forbids these sort of public prayers. Apparently rumor has it Bosma has an eye for the young ladies. Of that will not stop the fundamentalists from backing Bosma as long as he carries water for them, but heaven forbid if he decides to stop. I almost wonder if Bosma is positioning himself for a national grandstanding publicity move similar to the one Judge Ray Moore pulled off in Alabama over the placement of the Ten Commandments statue in the State Courthouse I say bring it on because if the stories about you are true Speaker Bosma you will be exposed as Indiana’s own Elmer Gantry
Now, once again this is an example of the IndyStar pulling its punches at the disservice of informing its readership. I think the Star is terrified of openly discussing the rise of Christian Dominionism in Indiana less they raise the ire of the Religious Right. The Star will keep using coded language like strict conservative to describe Republicans who have sold out to the Dominionists or who are themselves part of the Christian Reconstructist movement unless, its readership complains. The vast number of Hoosiers are uninformed as to the nature of the Christian Dominionist movement and how they have corrupted politics on a local and national level. Hoosiers need to be aware how this undemocratic, unamerican and unconstitutional political has infiltrated the state’s Republican party.
There is a lot of great deal of information coming out about the Christian Dominionism movement and the links Hoosier Republicans have to it. Start here with his post over at Hullabaloo and follow the links. Also Terry Gross over at NPR’s Fresh Air has an excellent interview with Michelle Goldberg about her new book on Christian Nationalism. About 3 quarters of the way into the interview Goldberg specifically mentions Hoosiers politicians who figure prominently in the Christian Nationalist movement. She sites Rep. John Hostettler‘s work undermining attempts to prevent excessive evangelizing at the US Air Force Academy along with Rep. Edward Souder‘s attempts to prevent the FDA from hearing testimony that calls into question the effectiveness of abstinence only education. Also Hullabaloo has another good post about the fundamentalists opposing the FDA’s approval of a HPV vaccine to protect young girls against cervical cancer as adults. Rep Souder is well known as the Dominionists anti-FDA\CDC attack dog. At the bottom is a link to Souders’s attempts at truthiness when comes to Abstinence Only Education
I will leave you with a battle cry of the Dominionists.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
Scary Scary stuff!!!
Doug,
When I drive around Indiana I and switch over to the AM dial I am amazed at the overabundance of Right-Wing Christian Stations, many of them pushing the Dominionists agenda. This is in addition to your favorite wing-nuts being broadcast over the mega-watt stations WIBC and WLW(Cincinnati) I am often reminded of the move Hotel Rwanda and the constant blare of Hutu Power Radio.
I am shocked that in the entire state of Indiana there is not one progressive talk radio station. Not Air America not even Ed Schultz. The closest Ed Schultz station is out of Cincinnati. So I found this interesting. Truthout has a link to an interview with Ed Schultz where Schultz states that the Religious Right is spending a fortune buying up licenses to small AM stations in order to keep him and other progressives off the air. Schultz makes the point that there are markets where there are a half dozen fundamentalist Christian radio stations, but no progressive talk stations even though progressive talk radio is the fastest growing format and is increasingly profitable. Schultz claims and I believe him that he is being specifically targeted by the Christian right to keep him off the market in middle America.
For whats it’s worth I remember when these christian right types first started to take over school boards in the 80s. Someone new would get elected,not well known, since in school board elections only a very few voters turn out,so I think the Christian Right chose this venue on purpose because the were stealth candidates,and once elected they then started with their agenda,without revealing the whole plan. There would be text book assault,suggestions for improving the Science curriculum,by giving more time to creationism(but not always well defined), insistance on prayer at events, and obessesion with social issues like sexual deviation, gays, sex education. It’s hard to remember it all.I was a public school public teacher at the time and it was the first I realized that I was the enemy to an organized tip of the ice berg movement that gradually made themselves known.But it all started so low key.And when one discussed it at first it sounded like paranoia.There was supposed to be no such thing as ‘a vast plot to take over the country’ Well this plot is well along now and it’s become mainstream.It’s not God who is taking over; it’s powerful ‘social reformers'( its hard to choose an objective term) with their own agenda.That’s not clear even yet since most americans believe in good will and good intentions.
One problem is that fighting this movement from an atheists’ point of view plays into their hands.Christians and Christian organizations need to step forward more and point out that we don’t have to be ‘conservative’ to be Christian., In fact Christianity is a liberal religion.I personally go to mass regularly and am categorized as a liberal catholic christian( with ‘christian’ often being dropped) Everyone is categorzied today. Thats how we keep track of people.
Perhaps the complete failure of the Bush administration in everything theyve done will have a silver lining. One way our administration has always been ‘conservative’ is to cater to the fundamentalists social agenda, and that’s why it’s been a very slow process to come to terms as a country with this administration’s perfidity.
The big enemies to this take over by the right is the public school system,the legal profession ( especially ‘trial’ lawyers) and of course the judicial system.
And one last point: now there’s the movement to make our founding fathers ,such as Jefferson into ‘Christian-inspired leaders’. Of course when we define ‘Christian leaders’,we dont use historical reference, we use present day point of reference and see Jefferson as a Jerry Falwell… we dont see see our founders as 18th century Deists,who in general terminology certainly WERE Christians.
we don’t have to be ‘conservative’ to be Christian
God Damm It Lou STOP saying conservative
Say Christianism(as opposed to Christian inorder to differentiate between those who attempt follow the moral teachings of Jesus Christ to those who attempt to use Jesus’s name as a will to power) or my perference Dominionism, or Christian Reconstructionism, or Christian Nationalism(reminds one of National Socialism) but do not imply there anything conservative about these conspirators against our nation’s freedoms. Please refrain from using their talkingpoint; that they are the true conservatives.
There is nothing conservative about a group of fanatics that wish to overthrow over 200 years of our nation’s history. These maniacs deny that our founding fathers intended for there to be a strict separation between church and state. They claim that our founding father intended to found the United States as a CHRISTIAN NATION. They are attempting to undermine the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One of the hallmarks of a conservative is a respect for one’s culture’s traditions and founding documents. Tell what is conservative about a bunch of religious lunatics.
but it sells more papers when they describe it as a fight for mom and apple pie and baby jesus! nothing like playing to the rabid crowd.
Llamajockey includes many helpful links in his initial reply, but unfortunately, the most fundamental one, Christian Dominionism has been so effectively co-opted by Dominionists that it now reads like a narrative on how anti-Christians are determined to use the label of “Dominionism” to silence law-abiding American Conservatives who merely wish to vote according to the principles of their faith. It can’t be labeled POV because the defenders of the faith revert any efforts to do so.
With regard to the motivation of the Dominionists to “overturn 200 years of our nations history”, this is readily countered by them with a revisionist slight-of-hand in which they indignantly claim that until very recently a majority of the American population has readily claimed that the United States is a “Christian Nation”, and only the anti-Christian oppression of liberals has made it appear otherwise through, you guessed it, “labels” like Dominionism.
llamajockey,
Watching the exchange between you and Lou seems to highlight a larger issue with the Democratic party that will need to be resolved before the next election.
Lou seems to be making generaly the same point as you, but he doesn’t sound as hateful. I’m sure you feel justified in your anger, and I know there are “Dominists” who also feel justified in their anger. You will yell and scream about how nuts they are, they will do the same at you. Maybe both sides will always do that.
However, those that try to understand both sides of the debate and find ways of working together are the ones that are going to change this country for the better. It is just hard to hear their calm voice when there is all the background noise from the wings.
To me, it seems like the trick is coming up with an easily understood label that distinguishes between Christians who just want to be free to practice their faith and follow the example of Christ as best they can and those who are more concerned that their faith be dominant in the society.
I haven’t come up with a satisfactory approach. I’ve been using “theocrats,” but it probably comes off as a little excitable among other things. Dominionist is probably accurate, but most people don’t know what the heck it means.
I just don’t like the Dominionists being able to capitalize on the good will created by the bulk of Christians and it’s necessary to separate them linguistically so that they rise or fall on their own merits.
Corrected!!
Doug,
Here is the reason I prefer Dominionist vs Theocratic, Fundamentalist or even “Christianist“.
First of all Theocrat implies the rule by a leader who is also the head of the state religion. The Religious Right has learned that approach will not work after Pat Robertson’s disastrous run for the GOP nomination in 1988. Besides the United State does not have a history of a state religion or a single dominate religious sect. A straight up Theocratic approach by the Religious Right would have hardline Catholics, Mormons, assorted Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostalists….. all at each other’s throats.
Second, I have met Fundamentalists who believe their bible is the word of God who none the less absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. They would not have it any other way less they might someday be the persecuted ones. They reject and abhor a Judge Ray Moore’s idolatry and politicizing of the the Ten Commandments.
Last, a word like Christianist preferred by the likes of the insufferable, mercurial and self-styled flamboyantly gay “conservative”Andrew Sullivan is just too cute and potentially confusing. It does not differentiate somebody who might sincerely wish to use the moral philosophy of Jesus Christ as a basis for a political or legal philosophy from a true Dominionist. Doug, you are from the old school where calling somebody a good Christian could have been done to describe Mahatma Gandhi’s quest for Indian independence or Saladin’s refusal to slaughter the Crusaders in reprisal for their atrocities against Muslims after recapturing Jerusalem. Both are examples of historical men of different religions who yet were influenced by their knowledge of the new testament gospels
No, I think using the words Dominionist/Dominionism are very important because they precisely describe the heretical legal and political philosophy of those who wish surreptitiously to rewrite the history of our country and the founding of its constitution along the lines of their own strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Dominionism is the very word it adherents use to describe their political goal to repudiate the the First Amendment’s Establish Clause separating Church and State as a first step towards completely redefining 200 plus years of legal precedence in interpreting the US constitution. In that regard their goals are as Un-American as Communism, Nazism, Fascism…..
Doug,
One last thing about the word Dominionist, it is precise. Yes, it has the problem of being a new word that the majority of the public is as yet unaware as to its meaning. But, I see that as an advantage because everytime somebody hears it they will ask what it means. And now it will be necessary to provide the public with its definition until it is commonplace in the political language. And guess what?? Everytime somebody outside of the koolaid drinking Dominionist orc army hears what it means they will react by saying, “But that is crazy, that is unconstitutional and Un-American”. That being exactly the response we should be looking for.