T Nation

Theocracy Watch

Do you believe that Jesus wants a small faction of Christian politicians to take over the federal government?

Should the federal government ‘fade away’ so that the Church can emerge as the main cornerstone of American society?

Do you think America should be ruled by Biblical law?

Should abortion be a crime?
How about homosexuality?
How about adultery?
How about atheism?

Do you realize that 41 out of the 51 Republican Senators have voted along with the guidelines of the Christian Coalition 100% of the time?

MUCH more information on this EXTENSIVE website detailing the rise of the Christain Right, and how they have come to dominate the Republican party:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/index.html

If you want a crash-overview or don’t care to do a lot of reading, try downloading the free video there.

I should add that a lot of this happens on a ‘stealth’ level…

Saint Paul said “Be all things to all people”. The Christian Conservatives use this quote to justify keeping their aims on the down-low, or even lying. This would even explain Tom DeLay’s illegal behavior, I suppose.

If you look at the Republican National Convention held in New York, almost none of the true leaders of the party were featured speakers (except for George Bush of course).

Instead of presenting the religious fundamentalists who actually run the party, like Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and Bill Bennet, instead the GOP soft-pedaled their views with moderate speakers like Rudy Giuliani (not even an office holder) and Arnold Schwarzenegger who do not actually reflect the core beliefs of the GOP leadership.

You know, I am an atheist, and I am so annoyed by atheists. There is no way America could become a Theocracy. Not needing a supermajority in congress, and the states to change the constitution.

This is just fear mongering with lies.

I believe most atheists are not true atheists. They are just whiney kids who thought God was another Santa, and when they prayed for that pony, and didn?t get it, got pissed off.

The vocal group of atheists are too preoccupied with Christianity to the point of hate, and attempting to take away their civil rights. Why is it wrong to hate all groups, EXCEPT CHRISTIANS?

You would not have posted this if it was called Jew Watch. (Or would you have?)

I should have specified “intelligent responses only”.

Do yourself a favor and get a dictionary. Then look up “Theocracy”. It’s a non-denominational term (look that up too).

PATHETIC attempt to turn this into “christian bashing” and blame this on “atheists”.

I’d bet five hundred bucks that you typed your response without even bothering to look at the TheocracyWatch website.

Hurray for ignorance! For your next magic trick, pull your head out of your ass.

Our country was founded on such beliefs. “…One Nation, under God…”, “In God We Trust”, “…We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights…”

You sound a lot like John Kerry when you start quoting the bible, or assuming - even for a second - you have the slightest clue what Paul was saying.
He don’t know shit about the Bible, and neither do you.

Just stick with your usual line of B.S. , don’t throw blasphemy on top of an already steaming pile.

Right, the Texas Republicans are upfront about saying there is no legal separation between Church and State.

I know that because I read the Theocracy Watch website.

“Blasphemy”, Bwahahahahaha.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Right, the Texas Republicans are upfront about saying there is no legal separation between Church and State.

I know that because I read the Theocracy Watch website.

“Blasphemy”, Bwahahahahaha.[/quote]

Where is the fear of the christian right coming from? Why do they scare you?

You call them radical - so does Theocracy Watch. What is radical about them? You know as well as I do that there will never be a theocracy in this country, yet you seem to think that because a few Senators agree with a PAC, that our nation is doomed to an eternal Sunday School class.

What is wrong with believing in a Supreme being, and allowing that faith to influence your moral compass?

You are scared, Lumpy. Why?

I did go to your much ballyhooed Theocracy Watch Website - it’s run by a bunch of people just like you, Lumpy - Scared of the christian right.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Where is the fear of the christian right coming from? Why do they scare you? [/quote]

Because I don’t want America to be legislated by Biblical Law. DO YOU?

They think Jesus wants America to be ruled by Biblical law. Cuckoo!

41 out of 51 Republican Senators vote in exact accordance with the Christian Coalition recommendations 100 PERCENT of the time. Now, what were you saying about “a few Senators”?

What is wrong with believing in a Supreme being, and allowing that faith to influence your moral compass?

I don’t want America to be run by ANY religious fundamentalists, whether they are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, whatever.

I ESPECIALLY don’t want America to be run by extremists with Apocalypse and Second Coming fantasies.

Answer the question: should America be ruled by Biblical law?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Our country was founded on such beliefs. “…One Nation, under God…”
[/quote]

this came about in the 1950’s…not during the founding of our counrty…

Uh oh.

Where do I begin? Lumpy, just because a bunch of dicks in Washington are beholden to a Christian group, doesn’t mean that they are going to make you stop working on Sunday or some shit. Relax. I’m assuming from your slight paranoia that you are an atheist like me. There is a big difference my friend, between someone who thinks that God and its religion is a bunch of superstition, and someone who hates God and its religion. So really, are you an atheist, or are you anti-religious? Yeah, the GOP has some fundamental christian backing. So what?

This goes back, I think, to the whole “under god” / pledge of allegiance thing we encountered a little while ago. You would think that as an atheist, I would object to the “under God” phrase as a matter of course, but this is not the case. I recognize that the phrase has significant traditional value, just like the ancient tree-worshipping rituals from pagan beliefs gave us Christmas, etc. You don’t hate Christmas do you? :slight_smile:

Seriously though, they’re not going to make us follow biblical law, and you know this already. Stop being silly Lumpy, you’re gonna get the crips all riled up again.

Lothario, don’t think it can’t happen here. In Bush’s first year (before 9/11) there were a few articles that stand out in my memory comparing the nearly identical voting records of the Bush admin with the Taliban government. The issues I recall mostly involved regulation of sexuality: birth control, condom distribution (i.e., STD prevention), abortion, sex education, etc. All of the similarities involved conservative religious positions. Don’t fall asleep at the wheel and assume that you are completely insulated from theocracy happening here.
jOW DPPUUUUP
Rainjack, you know I think the world of you dude, but you really don’t know about American history if you think it was founded on “Christian” values. Most of the founding fathers were either Rosicrucians or Freemasons, both secular orders. Right by the phrase that say’s “In god we trust” is a latin term that means “Secular World Order”
FG;A

Roy: I’m not falling asleep, I’m just not scared. A bunch of bible-toting fruitcakes are not going to ruin American life. The political climate is like a pendulum, sometimes it’s swinging towards the right, sometimes the left. When we (Americans) get a big enough dose of right-wing extremist Christian nonsense, then we will swing back towards the left. It’s nothing to get upset about, that’s what I’m trying to say.

Lumpy,

You get all of your thoughts from a hate America website, probably run by Al-Qaeda, and you call me dumb?

When pushed, you never answer a question. Just change the subject, or ignore the question. Because you work on such a weak foundation of hate.

I never said that there was a separation of Church and State, but there still is the constitution. Have you read it? The freedom of religion section? I realize you would like it to be freedom from religion.

Now with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in the constitution, religion cannot run the government. The government cannot make any law seen as respecting any religion.

And with most of the courts in the democrats pocket, a separation of church and state is being pushed as though it is in the constitution.

Also I guarantee that if the government moves to far in one direction or another, the populace will generally push it in the opposite direction. If you didn’t know, that is why the government is moving to the right. It has been pushed so far to the left that there is now a push to the right.

If we go to far to the right, it will be pushed back to the left again. This is the power of our system of government, the eternal tug of war that keeps things centered.

I realize you would prefer a socialist form of government, but oh well.

Now on to the question you have never answered even though I have asked you repeatedly, and especially now that you are claiming to be so all powerful and smart.

What is the difference between UNAMERICAN and ANTIAMERICAN?

When I described your little site as one, you acted like I said it was the other. Have you figured out the difference yet?

I now return you to your regular programming.

Lumpy,

The Christian Coalition ‘votes’ on all sorts of issues - from partial birth abortion to tax cuts to Medicare to bond issues for build local bridges - all kinds of public issues that may or may not have some religious underpinning. It wouldn’t be that hard for a garden variety conservative voter to find himself mirroring the Christian Coalition’s vote.

So, I, too, probably vote with the Christian Coalition most of the time, and I am far from evangelical.

What does that mean? Zilch. There is no pending legislation to convert our constitutional republic into a theocracy. There is no danger that non-Christians are going to get numbers stamped on their foreheads.

In other words, your paranoiac charges are bunk. It’s propaganda, as usual, trying to get folks upset that Pat Robertson is going to get elected and dissolve the Senate and declare himself emperor.

I don’t doubt that the Christian Right would change a lot of things about our country, but they are largely a fringe minority (I’m not talking Christians). The fact that some silly website trafficking in conspiracy and acting as a ‘watchdog’ on a group that really doesn’t have mainstream power is your beacon of truth is embarassing.

Mage, your “you hate America” tactic is really getting old. Hop off that high horse, cowboy. I think you are forgetting that, although we all have different ideast of how to get there, everyone in here cares about this country, or we wouldn’t be so passionate about our opinions. Your attempts to brand someone an America-Hater just halts any possibility of discourse. Besides, you are more intelligent that that. You shouldn’t have to resort to such tactics. They are below you.

The following is a post from someone else from another forum where I read/post. He makes some chilling discoveries that I was previously completely unaware of. Many of you will simply scan past this and lob attack at it without reading because it is very long, but it is well worth the read and I hope all of you pay close attention.


As the administration of George W. Bush took shape, one question puzzled me greatly. The circumstances of Bush’s ascent to power—circumstances that posed problems of legitimacy—seemed to necessitate governing from the center. Yet it was very apparent, very quickly, that in both military/foreign policy areas and in cultural/religious/social areas, the agenda of the administration was radically to the right of center. How was it possible with such uncanny dispatch to put together an administration that would pursue this agenda in such a thorough-going way.

As regards agendas for military adventures and foreign policy escapades, the answer dawned on me and many others sometime in 2003, as the war in Iraq was prosecuted. The socalled neo-conservatives were at the heart of the matter, and the key institution was the Project for a New American Century. The first President Bush and members of his administration had not really expected that they would be ousted from office by the Arkansas Upstart. They retreated to various think tanks, especially the PNAC. Here they attempted to influence the Clinton administration to adopt some of their preferred policies, meanwhile planning the policies they would themselves put into effect if a Republican president should be elected in 2000. The power of the PNAC is fairly manifest in a mere recital of the names of some of its prominent members—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, for starters. (And, oh yes, Jeb Bush.)

But I continued to be puzzled by the origins of the domestic or cultural side of the Bush agenda. There didn’t seem to be anything like the PNAC. Until very recently (three days ago) my puzzlement continued. But then, as British philosophers used to say in describing moments of sudden insight, “the penny dropped.” I discovered an organization called The Council for National Policy. (Talk about an innocuous name!)

The discovery was serendipitous, due entirely to the unexpected crisis in the supply of flu vaccine that emerged last week. Tommy Thompson, Bush’s secretary of health and human services, announced on September 23 that (a) everyone should be vaccinated against flu this year and (b) his department had worked diligently with manufacturers, with the result that there would be plenty of vaccine. Thompson’s subsequent statements have been sterling examples of political bum-covering and finding excuses for his incompetence and that of the Bush regime.

I wrote a letter to the NY Times, and it was published October 11. But at that point I hadn’t run across the CNP. Interested in Thompson’s credentials, I went to Google, where a couple of sources identified him as a member or former member of the CNP. What was this organization, anyway? It turned out to be the equivalent, in domestic matters, or the PNAC.

Maybe everyone in the world knows this, and when I write about it, I’m just proving how clueless I am, but I’ll go on, anyway. What the CNP is up to may be evident in this list of just a few of its over 500 members, past and present: John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Trent Lott, Tim LaHaye, Scott McClellan, Paul Weyrich, Oliver North, Phyllis Schaffly, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms, Allen Keyes, Bob Jones III, Bill Frist.

If the PNAC can be called Neocons for short, then the CNP deserves the title of Theocons, for its agenda, from its founding right up until today, can be described as promoting the cause of Christian theocracy in the USA, while at the same time pursuing the geopolitical goals of the PNAC.

There was a NYT column by Paul Krugman in December, 2002, that moves from a consideration of Tom DeLay’s explanation of the Columbine shootings (Darwin was responsible) to a mention of the CNP Here’s an excerpt, followed by a link to the entire article.

“This blandly named organization was founded by Tim LaHaye, co-author of the apocalyptic “Left Behind” novels, and is in effect a fundamentalist pressure group. As of 1998 the organization’s membership contained many leading Congressional figures in the Republican Party, though none of the party’s neoconservative intellectuals.

“George W. Bush gave a closed-door speech to the council in 1999, after which the religious right in effect endorsed his candidacy. Accounts vary about what he promised, and the organization has refused to release the tape. But it’s notable that he appointed John Ashcroft as attorney general; Mr. Ashcroft gives every appearance of placing his biblical worldview above secular concerns about due process.”

More recently (August 28, 2004) the NY Times published David Kirkpatrick’s “THE CONSERVATIVES; Club of the Most Powerful Gathers in Strictest Privacy,” an account of the CNP’s annual meeting in Manhattan, right around the time of the GOP convention. I’ll tack this article on at the end of this post.

Another good resource comes from the next link, an account of the CNP’s activities during the Clinton years. Here’s an excerpt, but I recommend looking at the whole thing.

“On January 4, 1996, three weeks after much of the federal government remained closed, the Christian Coalition’s Washington office faxed an Action Alert urging its members to pressure President Clinton to give in to the Republican’s proposed budget, and to keep the pressure on the House and Senate Republican leadership and conservative Democrats.

“Christian Coalition president Pat Robertson is a former CNP President. He and Christian Coalition executive director Ralph
Reed are active CNP members.

“The action alert included a list of the crucial
congressional leaders to contact. It also suggested holding press conferences, calling talk shows, and writing letters to editors.

“The Action Alert emphasized that the issue at stake is more than balancing the budget, and included a point-by-point list of the hard right agenda. Some of the numerous items listed included:

  • a permanent Hyde Amendment;
  • abstinence education funding;
  • education vouchers;
  • a prohibition on unmarried couples adopting children;
  • no funding in any way for abortion;
  • a 40% reduction in the National Endowment for the Arts;
    and
  • elimination of the Office of Surgeon General.

“After the longest government shutdown in history, time will tell how the Council for National Policy, and its Christian Coalition members, affected the innumerable details of thecomplex federal budget.”

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=council+for+national+policy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=4h2bmf%241smq%40news.missouri.edu&rnum=1

There’s also this source, which is interesting (especially in the stuff about John Denver at the beginning), but I can’t vouch for the reliability of its author, Barbara Aho, one way or the other.
http://watch.pair.com/cnp.html

Here’s the Kirkpatrick NYT article.

Discovering the Theocons

Club of the Most Powerful Gathers in Strictest Privacy
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Three times a year for 23 years, a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country have met behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference, the Council for National Policy, to strategize about how to turn the country to the right.

Details are closely guarded.

“The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before of after a meeting,” a list of rules obtained by The New York Times advises the attendees.

The membership list is “strictly confidential.” Guests may attend “only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee.” In e-mail messages to one another, members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.

This week, before the Republican convention, the members quietly convened in New York, holding their latest meeting almost in plain sight, at the Plaza Hotel, for what a participant called “a pep rally” to re-elect President Bush.

Mr. Bush addressed the group in fall 1999 to solicit support for his campaign, stirring a dispute when news of his speech leaked and Democrats demanded he release a tape recording. He did not.

Not long after the Iraq invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a council meeting.

This week, as the Bush campaign seeks to rally Christian conservative leaders to send Republican voters to the polls, several Bush administration and campaign officials were on hand, according to an agenda obtained by The New York Times.

“The destiny of our nation is on the shoulders of the conservative movement,” the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, told the gathering as he accepted its Thomas Jefferson award on Thursday, according to an attendee’s notes.

The secrecy that surrounds the meeting and attendees like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and the head of the National Rifle Association, among others, makes it a subject of suspicion, at least in the minds of the few liberals aware of it.

“The real crux of this is that these are the genuine leaders of the Republican Party, but they certainly aren’t going to be visible on television next week,” Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said.

Mr. Lynn was referring to the list of moderate speakers like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York who are scheduled to speak at the convention.

“The C.N.P. members are not going to be visible next week,” he said. “But they are very much on the minds of George W. Bush and Karl Rove every week of the year, because these are the real powers in the party.”

A spokesman for the White House, Trent Duffy, said: “The American people are quite clear and know what the president’s agenda is. He talks about it every day in public forums, not to any secret group of conservatives or liberals. And he will be talking about his agenda on national television in less than a week.”

The administration and re-election effort were major focuses of the group’s meeting on Thursday and yesterday. Under Secretary of State John Bolton spoke about plans for Iran, a spokesman for the State Department said.

Likewise, a spokesman for Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta confirmed that Mr. Acosta had addressed efforts to stop “human trafficking,” a major issue among Christian conservatives.

Dr. Frist spoke about supporting Mr. Bush and limiting embryonic stem cell research, two attendees said. Dan Senor, who recently returned from Iraq after working as a spokesman for L. Paul Bremer III, the top American civilian administrator, was scheduled to provide an update on the situation there.

Among presentations on the elections, an adviser to Mr. Bush’s campaign, Ralph Reed, spoke on “The 2004 Elections: Who Will Win in November?,” attendees said.

The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the “Left Behind” novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation.

They said at the time that they were seeking to create a Christian conservative alternative to what they believed was the liberalism of the Council on Foreign Relations.
A statement of its mission distributed this week said the council’s purposes included “to acquaint our membership with those in positions of leadership in our nation in order that mutual respect be fostered” and “to encourage the exchange of information concerning the methodology of working within the system to promote the values and ends sought by individual members.”

Membership costs several thousand dollars a year, a participant said. Its executive director, Steve Baldwin, did not return a phone call.

Over the years, the council has become a staging ground for conservative efforts to make the Republican Party more socially conservative. Ms. Schlafly, who helped build a grass-roots network to fight for socially conservative positions in the party, is a longstanding member.

At times, the council has also seen the party as part of the problem. In 1998, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family spoke at the council to argue that Republicans were taking conservatives for granted. He said he voted for a third-party candidate in 1996.

Opposition to same-sex marriage was a major conference theme. Although conservatives and Bush campaign officials have denied seeking to use state ballot initiatives that oppose same-sex marriage as a tool to bring out conservative voters, the agenda includes a speech on “Using Conservative Issues in Swing States,” said Phil Burress, leader of an initiative drive in Ohio, a battleground state.

The membership list this year was a who’s who of evangelical Protestant conservatives and their allies, including Dr. Dobson, Mr. Weyrich, Holland H. Coors of the beer dynasty; Wayne LaPierre of the National Riffle Association, Richard A. Viguerie of American Target Advertising, Mark Mix of the National Right to Work Committee and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Not everyone present was a Bush supporter, however. This year, the council included speeches by Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Michael A. Peroutka of the ultraconservative Constitution Party. About a quarter of the members attended their speeches, an attendee said.

Nor was the gathering all business. On Wednesday, members had a dinner in the Rainbow Room, where William F. Buckley Jr. of the National Review was a special guest. At 10 p.m. on Thursday and Friday, members had “prayer sessions” in the Rose Room at the hotel.

Dr. Dobson said in an interview that he planned to refrain from endorsing candidates at the event, which was officially nonpartisan. But he added that he recently awoke from a nightmare that Mr. Kerry had been elected president and then appointed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

“That alarms me greatly,” Dr. Dobson said.


This great country of ours was founded by right wing conservatives who firmly believed in the teachings of the bible. The United States of America prospered and grew to a superpower under the unbrlla of christian beliefs.

Liberals usually go nuts when I point out the fact that as the U.S. gets farther away from our core christian beliefs, we sink farther as a nation.

GW-04!

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This great country of ours was founded by right wing conservatives who firmly believed in the teachings of the bible. The United States of America prospered and grew to a superpower under the unbrlla of christian beliefs.

Liberals usually go nuts when I point out the fact that as the U.S. gets farther away from our core christian beliefs, we sink farther as a nation.

GW-04![/quote]

Most were Deists, not Christians.

We have little to fear from Christian Fundamentalists. They preach a theology of love and family. I am not one of them by the way.

We have a great deal to fear from Islamic Fundamentalists. The theology the preach is not love your nieghbor but kill him.

All in all I would rather have people emulate Christ then Mohammad.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This great country of ours was founded by right wing conservatives who firmly believed in the teachings of the bible. The United States of America prospered and grew to a superpower under the unbrlla of christian beliefs.

Liberals usually go nuts when I point out the fact that as the U.S. gets farther away from our core christian beliefs, we sink farther as a nation.

GW-04![/quote]

You know, republicans hate big flamers…or flamers of any size, really.