MSNBC's Religious Expert Excoriates 'Radical,' 'Theocratic' Christians Like Bachmann Who 'Hate' America
In a segment on the religiosity of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, MSNBC's Richard Lui on Wednesday looked to an author who has smeared conservative Christians as "radical," weird individuals who "hate" America.
The guest host for Martin Bashir interviewed Frank Schaeffer, a blogger on the liberal Huffington Post website and also a constant critic of the religious right. Schaeffer, the son of a conservative theologian, excoriated conservatives: "But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is."
Lui never pointed out Schaeffer's liberal leanings or his endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008. The author and blogger warned of apocalyptic dangers, should Bachmann be elected president: "She comes from a wing of the evangelical movement where takes the Bible literally, and that includes the Old Testament that has passages about stoning gay people to death and all the rest of it."
Apparently, if the Republican Congresswoman wins the White House, she "would produce a theocracy in the country where the Bible would be paramount and no longer the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
Lui didn't call Schaeffer on his apparent contradiction. Just a few minutes after the above quote, the writer suggested that when Christian Republican candidates come into office, "the only people they actually serve is Wall Street, and- and- and so really the social issues are a red herring..."
Schaeffer was appearing, partly, to promote his book, "Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway." (Lui awkwardly read the whole title.)
In July of 2010, Schaeffer, whose family helped promote the pro-life movement in the '70s, asserted that some of the "nuttiest" evangelicals support Israel.
A transcript of the July 06 segment, which aired at 3:15pm EDT, follows:
RICHARD LUI: Tea Party darling and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann may be the most interesting in the Republican 2012 field. She also may be most religious. The pulpit is a popular place for Bachmann, a conservative Lutheran who is sharing her story of spiritual awakening with U.S. voters, as she did Sunday at a church in Iowa.
MICHELE BACHMANN: It was in 1972 on November 1st when I bowed my knee and gave my heart to Jesus Christ, when I recognized that as the Bible says all have sinned, all have fallen short, all need a savior. And I came to the realization that even though I thought I was a nice person, I wasn't doing drugs, I wasn't wild, I wasn't drinking, It didn't matter. I was a sinner. I needed a savior.
LUI: Now, Bachmann is staunchly anti-abortion, already sharing a personal anecdote about a miscarriage she suffered. She's an outspoken critic of gay marriage as is her husband Marcus who once compared homosexuals to, quote, "barbarians who needed to be disciplined" on a Christian radio show. Leaders of the Christian right are reluctant to embrace Bachmann at this moment and will get behind Texas governor Rick Perry if he enters the race. Now, on August 6th, Perry will host an all-day prayer event in Houston called "the response." To talk about faith in politics in the 2012 race, we welcome Frack Schaeffer, political commentator, blogger and author of the new book Sex, Mom & God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics and How I Learned to Love Women and Jesus Anyway. That's the title. Frank, thanks for dropping by today.
FRANK SCHAEFFER: Thanks, Richard.
LUI: Frank, so, you know, as Americans and really Republican primary voters get to know Michele Bachmann a little bit more each and every week, will her faith be an asset going forward, do you think, to the election or a liability here?
SCHAEFFER: It will be a liability with the general public when they learn how radical she is. She comes from a wing of the evangelical movement where takes the Bible literally, and that includes the Old Testament that has passages about stoning gay people to death and all the rest of it. And, of course, Michele Bachmann, like Sarah Palin and others on the far religious right is too politically savvy to express clearly what she believes. But the fact of the matter is, the part of Christianity she comes from is radical even for evangelical Bible believers. And so I think- I think gradually, it will become apparent to American voters that she could not win the general election. And Republicans are going to have to make a choice to either be a normal political party or, really, theocracy in waiting with people like Michele Bachmann, who in the best of all possible worlds, as far as she would see it, would produce a theocracy in the country where the Bible would be paramount and no longer the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
LUI: As we see the Tea Party energy continuously grow in the GOP, do you find that in the primary then that she will have some attraction, that she will generate a lot of momentum?
SCHAEFFER: Yeah. I mean, you know, you mentioned my book Sex, Mom and God and one of the things I talk about in that book is charting the course of the religious right from their beginnings in the 1970s with the anti-abortion movement that my family had something to do with, to the present. And the fact of the matter is they have always engaged in these culture war topics when it comes to primary voters, this small core of hard right religious voters, and then they have to change later. But you've got to understand something, and that is that Michele Bachmann and the others on the far right of the Republican Party have moved the whole party so far right that they are no longer normal political party. They are out of the mainstream to the extent that she represents a fringe. The problem is, that fringe controls the nomination process in the primaries and you have to understand that the liability they run is that when the general public gets a look at this, they are going to run a long way away, so that's the bind they are in, appeal to the fringe in the primaries or the general population.
LUI: Now, Frank, your father was a writer, a theologian. Bachmann or the Bachmann family, reportedly, looking towards his writings.
SCHAEFFER: Right.
LUI: So there is some link here, at least to your family's background, and you self-describe yourself as one of the founders of the religious right, to what she's thinking and what she's doing today.
SCHAEFFER: Yeah. And I got out obviously, and the story of why I got out in Sex, Mom & God is very clear. But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is. Look, they love a fictional, Christian America that wouldn't include gay people, does not have choice and abortion rights for women and all the rest of this. But, in terms of the real America, inclusive, diverse, sustaining of gay people as well as heterosexuals and so forth, this is an America they despise and that's why they talk in terms of taking it back, from whom? That would be from the rest of us, ordinary American citizens under the rule of law.
LUI: But, Frank- Hate is a pretty strong word here. These certainly are citizens of the United States and so far given what they have said and done have not expressed hatred towards the United States.
SCHAEFFER: Sure. Well, you know, when you- you mentioned her husband talking about gay people being barbarians, and if you look, for instance, at Sarah Palin's family, they have had a lot to do with the secessionist movement in Alaska. You're not part of a movement that says it wants to secede from the union in the United States if you like this country. Folks like Michele Bachmann wrap themselves in the flag, but when push comes to shove, their religious values, theocratic values, they are not talking about the same America the rest of us are looking at. And the irony is when they get elected or famous in their politics, when Republicans actually come into office, the only people they actually serve is Wall Street, and- and- and so really the social issues are a red herring because they may get the votes of a certain portion of America, mostly white, middle and lower white Americans in the evangelical of Christianity, but when they get into office what happens, de-funding education, tax cuts for the wealthy, narrowing the public space. And, unfortunately, they take advantage of a lot of well-meaning people who vote for them on social issues they care passionately about. When they get into power, it's all about Wall Street and, you know, they wouldn't let the kind of people vote for them caddy for them on their golf link.
LUI: Frank, we have got to go, but I do want to mention Rick Perry because we've had the introduction very quickly. He also has support from the religious right, conservative right. Would he not be a good possibility here to move towards the primary?
SCHAEFFER: Well, look. Any guy that starts a national run by calling a prayer meeting and mixing the issues of church and state as he has in Texas is someone who has his eye on this little group. But I say one more time just before we go. It's total hypocrisy because these people know that group helps them win the primary but when the Republicans get into office it's about serving corporate Wall Street interests. It has nothing to do with the social agenda they get elected on so it's a scam, but it's a scam that keeps working. 40 Years of Republican domination of the American political process based on abortion, gay rights, these other things they wave around, but actually it's really about corporate America.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Most Christains do
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:07pm.
"She comes from a wing of the evangelical movement where takes the Bible literally, and that includes the old testament that has passages about stoning gay people to death and all the rest of it."
Most Christians do take the bible literally, but they also know that you have to be very careful in how you judge others because every judgement you make, and how you act due to that judgement, will also be judged, both by those around you and by God. It's a philosophy that is over two thousand years old, and it obviously works. I mean, really, when was the last time a Christian stoned someone to death for being gay? Carefull judgement is something that Schaeffer never seemed to learn. That's why he calls this philosophy "radical."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
AND
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:42pm.
these idiots will never mention what actually DOES happen in those peaceful muslim countries
Most Christians Don't
Submitted by Hologram5 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:55pm.
I disagree, MOST Christians DON"T take the bible literally, not any of the ones I know anyways. Only the morons like the Westborough Baptist Church. The rest of us don't feel that way. We see the Bible as a moral guideline if you will. I believe that the bible was not written for church, I believe it was written for man as a moral compass. One should not throw blanket statements unless one is 100% sure of their facts.
As one of those morons, what
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:09pm.
As one of those morons, what is your definition of a Christian? I submit you might not know any Christians.
--I disagree, MOST Christians
Submitted by jazzact13 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:20pm.
--I disagree, MOST Christians DON"T take the bible literally, not any of the ones I know anyways.
So, for you, the ones who take the Bible literally are those who would stone gays?
Was it not Jesus Himself who turned back a crowd who was set to stone a adultress? But was it not also Jesus who told her to go and not commit that sin any more?
There is grace, but do not mistake that for license, as too many do.
"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."
Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Taking the Bible literally, and seriously...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:47pm.
...leads to nothing like the Westboro pseudo-Christian group.
Only those who cherry-pick turn out like them. Or, unfortunately, like Frank Schaeffer, who never misses a chance to slur his father's memory and legacy.
If the Bible cannot be taken literally, as a whole, then it is not trustworthy. Thankfully, it can, and it is. Tell me this: If you don't take the Bible literally, how do you have any foundation from which to consider yourself a Christian?
--Mike
Literally
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:28pm.
Do you take the Psalms literally? (A book of songs and poetry)
Do you take Song of Solomon literally? (A love song)
Do you take the parables of Jesus literally? (Parables are considered to be analogies)
Do you take all the proverbs literally (try 26:4-5) true or more as guidelines?
or as my Torah professor in college said "NOBODY 'does' Leviticus, No Christian and No Jews". By which he meant none of the Jewish or Christian traditions follows those passages literally, but rather take them as part of a greater context with the whole book. In that context I would agree that nobody takes the bible "literally" as the liberals use the term.
You have to take them literally.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:36pm.
You have to take those passages literally or you can't learn anything from them. You don't have to FOLLOW them literally, but you do have to accept them literally.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
It's not a book of suggestions, thanks.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:26am.
Or a compass.
Or a guideline.
It is the communication of hope. Even in Leviticus.
--Mike
I think the confusion around
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:10pm.
I think the confusion around this is the idea that the alternative to what people call a 'literal' interpretation is to treat the whole Bible as some type of loose 'metaphor' which doesn't necessarily reflect truth or reality but only one person's take on it. This point of view would see the Bible as no different than any other work of literature. No more or less true than Moby Dick in its use of symbolism. Just as the story in Moby Dick didn't really happen, but is meant to discuss some truth, the story in the Bible didn't happen but is meant to discuss some truth.
Traditionally, the Bible is meant to be read as a type of literal allegory, which is not the equivalent to metaphor. What that means is that there is some type of literal truth in the stories, but it isn't necessarily the most obvious, surface truth -- it has to be interpreted and understood.
An easy example of this is the story in Genesis the world being created in seven days. The possible notion that the 'days' of Genesis are equivalent to calendar days we have today is really not the relevant point here. The Jewish people were also told to have a sabbatical year at the end of a 7 year cycle, and to have a jubilee year at the end of every 7 year sabbatical year cycle. So the cycle of 7 is more important than the length of the 'day'. The idea that there was a beginning, a moment of creation is also an important idea, to contrast to the Greek idea of an eternal universe. The sequence of creation is also important , light from darkness -> the firmament -> earth and sea -> lights in the firmament -> sea creatures then birds -> land creatures then man -> blessing and sanctification. Religious people will point out that the truth in this sequence has held up to scientific discovery. Creatures of the sea, according even to evolutionary theory, were the first to be created.
St. Augustine (in the 4th century) had already discussed how you cant interpret the Bible through the surface truth, you have to see the deeper meaning. What some people on the other side have to realize is this view Christian tradition argues against is properly called "literal". "Literal" means the primary, common, strict meaning of words -- not the deeper, interpreted meaning behind them.
Pratice what you preach
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:32pm.
Humm, got to love that "most of the ones I know" argument. Just how many, out of the tens of millions of Christians of every denomination that exists in America, do you actually know?
As for throwing around blanket statements , how do you know that most, or even some, Christians feel, like you do, that the Bible is just a moral compass? That, in itself, is a blanket statement. You wouldn't throw that statement out without being 100 percent sure of the facts, would you? You're not a hypocrite, are you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're wrong
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:51am.
Westboro is an abomination and perverts scripture. I am a born again Christian, and I do take God's word literally, but I also use my God given discernment to know when scripture is symbolic or literal. When Jesus said "this is my body given for you" he didnt break off an arm and pass it around for the disciples to eat. So dont lump the rest of us in with those "people" at Westboro, thank you very much.
This article...
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:15pm.
is truly unworthy of comment.
Call a Liberal unpatriotic
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:24pm.
Call a Liberal unpatriotic and they will go Berserk . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Here's the news flash Hop Sing.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:29pm.
I'll take a bible loving, gun carrying patriot over a Marxist/Progressive Arrogant Mooslem any day. Are we clear?!
ummmm
Submitted by GW on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:37pm.
"And, unfortunately, they take advantage of a lot of well-meaning people who vote for them on social issues they care passionately about. When they get into power, it's all about Wall Street and, you know, they wouldn't let the kind of people vote for them caddy for them on their golf link."
And how many conniptions did the MSM have when W got Roberts and Alito onto the Supreme Court? "They're going to outloaw abortion!!!!"
Hatred for big government is no sin
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:41pm.
"But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is."
Ok, if the US was to return to the days of Washington when there was no bureaucracy how much would Schaeffer "hate" the United States?
--"But, I came to understand
Submitted by jazzact13 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:26pm.
--"But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is."
But the strange thing is, it's Schaeffer and his ilk, like Jim Wallis and Sojourners, who are trying to legislate fundamental change to the US.
They are the ones who see the US (along with Israel) as being among the great purveyors of wrong in the world. Almost everything the US does, they are ready to condemn.
It would be much safer to say that Schaeffer is one of those who hates the US as it is, except the parts that he and ones like him have already changed to their approval.
"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."
Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Chesterton
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:39pm.
Great political commentator and philosopher.
?
Submitted by compguytracy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:49pm.
since when does the bill of rights or the constitution matter to these assclowns?
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" Orwell, 1984
Ceteris paribus
?
Submitted by compguytracy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:50pm.
Since when does the constitution or bill of rights matter to these socialist assclowns?
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" Orwell, 1984
Ceteris paribus
Is it just me or does it seem like the libs
Submitted by Lipton on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:00pm.
are getting wilder and wilder in their accusations against the GOP. They are starting to sound like paranoid little ninnies and have completely left any pretext of integrity behind.
In some of these blurbs on NewsBusters you can even see it in the anchor's eyes. They look wild to me. Maybe it is just me or they too are getting used to a new normal.
I'm thinking along those lines too.
Submitted by Mark81150 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 8:13am.
Remember they thought 08 was their moment of vindication, the coronation of liberalism as the one true faith, and we were supposed to be scattered dead, and dying as a party and movement. Time, Newsweak, the NYT's.. all of them were proudly stating we were dying off old and rejected, and no new conservatives were made after 1968 or some such nonsense. They really seemed to believe that we should hang our heads in shame for our overt racism and our refusal to jump on the "let's go with the hip kids and vote for the black guy" bandwagon.
Like competence had nothing to do with the job,.. and vet?.. what the Hell do you mean VET?.. he's BLACK for God's sake, the media only vets black candidates who are republicans..... them already being suspect to the MSM for racial betrayal..
No,.. they were so deeply buying into their own propaganda, they really thought, they'd never have to fight hard again, that we'd just go away forever and the indoctrination could go on as scheduled.
then bit by bit,.. the won's halo slipped.
Now as it looks more and more likely, Obama will be the Bush of 2012.. the toxic name they all run from,.. I think we'll see two distinct attitudes come out..
The CNN,.. no not us, we were never in the tank,.. hey hey, we're fair,.. look here, all the dirt we buried for 4 years,.. I mean,.. just found...
and
The MSNBC wild crazy eyes "we don'ts needz no tinking proof"... stories about how the Sun will go dark, the oceans leap from their beds, and dogs and cats will live together... mass hysteria.... they'll lose it to the point... I'm serious here... MSNBC may well implode on itself going to teh crazy so much... testing to see how far the ratings can crash before going broke.
In 1929, they say folks jumped off high buildings when they saw the end of their fortunes..
I expect Schultz to hole up in a mountain cabin with 87 cases of pork n beans, 300 rolls of toilet paper, and a super soaker 9000......
He and Mad-Cow can send each other emails about the revolution going to the Hills till their newest Che' comes along....
I saw MSNBC and...
Submitted by herc0 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:07pm.
I didn't need to read any more to know what the spin would be from a company that exempts 'Under God' from the pledge...
Anti-Christian bigotry from a
Submitted by robert108 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:15pm.
Anti-Christian bigotry from a leftie MSM member? Nothing new about that.
I always wondered . . . .
Submitted by Clemenza on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:49pm.
what happend to Cato from the "Pink Panther"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM042h4Pkks&feature=related
Two liberals/leftists claiming to be religious experts? NOT!
Submitted by CKA in Red State USA on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:12pm.
Had these two dunderheads the courage and curiosity, as well as humility, to visit the evangelical/Pentecostal church to which I belong and in which I serve, they would find how very much their malicious uninformed statement was just that.
And they would find out very quickly.
Especially from the members, including the senior pastor, who have had loved ones who served or now serve or are headed to service in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or simply are members of the Armed Forces.
That includes one of the senior pastor's sons who's a chaplain who served in Afghanistan.
Or an elementary school principal and his wife who have a son in the Army who served two tours in Iraq.
Or the wife of an infantryman who was injured while on a combat patrol in Iraq.
These two would also get to speak with several Viet Nam combat veterans, including one who was at the infamous Battle of Dak To in November 1967.
Or one who saw several of his buddies killed by friendly fire from American helicopters.
Or even some Korean War or World War II veterans, including one who helped liberate Dachau.
They'd also be able to speak with a member who, as an National Guard infantryman with a North Carolina unit, who had several of his platoon mates killed in Iraq.
They also be able to speak with two men -- a Viet Nam veteran and a circuit-court judge -- who spearheaded a project in which we sent scores of care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They could also speak with a lady who was involved in a similar project she headed.
And they could chat with the senior pastor about how, each year, we honor veterans and those serving in the Armed Forces.
And how that we pray for our nation, even Barack Obama and his administration.
Or how we serve our community, though food-distribution which at Christmas and Thanksgiving, especially means we distribute food to about 2,000 people.
Or how we supply other food banks in the region.
Or how we support an annual summer camp for abused foster children who don't have the opportunity at other times just to have the freedom to have fun and be children.
Or how we annually take up offerings to give gifts to children whose parents lack the funds to provide for their children.
Or how we support the local, county and even state police officers -- some who belong to our church -- and the local EMS folks, some of whom also belong to our church.
And how we visit people in nursing homes and hospitals, even at distance, if someone requests it.
And how we stand by the families of those people.
And how, when appropriate, we give money to indigents or the needy in our community.
We do none of this for slaps on the backs or atta-boys / atta-girls. Christ Jesus inspires us to serve.
We also have managed to keep politics out of the pulpit, something that was very difficult in the 2008 election, given the strong opinions from the overwhelming number of conservatives -- note: I did not say Republicans -- in the congregation and those Democrats/liberals who supported Barack Obama.
To find any of this, though, Lui and Schaeffer would have to jettison their prejudices and inherent intentional ignorance, as well as their fear of God, something I suspect they would find nearly impossible to do.
In my opinion, men such as Schaeffer and Lui need some intense behind-the-woodshed counseling from some real men. On being men and on what it means to love America.
Of course, all in a Christian manner, though. :-)
They also need a visitation from the Holy Spirit to open their eyes and hearts to the unavoidable self-inflicted eternal penalty, if they don't change their view of the Lord God.
I pray that they do.
CKA
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:20pm.
This post makes me proud to be a Christian and an American. It also humbles me as I feel I should be doing more, and that's a good thing. Thanks.
Frankie Boy...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:49pm.
Frankie boy is just a spoiled brat who is under the influence of the Devil. He hated his father and is getting back at him for his so-called abuse. By abuse, Frankie Boy claims it was abuse to isolate him from the influence of the world. To compensate, he has embraced everything his father loathed!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
That was possibly the greatest tribute to Religious Americans
Submitted by Mark81150 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 4:51am.
That I've ever read,..
Modern Americans of faith have much more in common with the citizen soldiers and statesmen of our founding than the MSM will ever recognize. Like the souls you write of, serving God and our country in the quiet unassuming way that the best of us have always done. Never asking for anything, except that we each live up to our responsibilities.
No one asks for perfection, only that we try our best, and never stop trying.
Only now, is that considered rightwing, or fringe..
Why would you rub crap all over your face and go on TV?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:08pm.
That Schaeffer is weird dude.
"But, I came to understand
Submitted by Bhaal on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:29pm.
"But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is."
I think this is a true statement. The religious right hates seeing all the crap that goes one everyday in America as acceptable or ok. Promiscuity, homosexuality, drugs, socialism, all the PC crap and the athiest agenda being run roughshod allover everyone. Making excuses for trash like Anthony Weiner, and Chucky Wrangle. All people religious or not should be pissed off at these things but that's not the case.
Wow! You learn something NEW about Yourself everday!
Submitted by stage9 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:43pm.
For instance, I never knew that I hated America:
"But, I came to understand that these people actually hate the United States as it is."
Who knew? Seeing as how most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and America wouldn't have existed if atheism were given the opportunity (look to France for that) I think my view of America is quite consistent. Compare that to liberal radicals and one has to wonder what "United States" Schaeffer is referring to. I'm convinced that liberals woke up in the WRONG country and the wrong century!
"She (Bachmann) comes from a wing of the evangelical movement where takes the Bible literally, and that includes the Old Testament that has passages about stoning gay people to death and all the rest of it."
First, I love the way stupid people always set up straw men arguments and then attempt to debunk them.
But is this true? Do evangelicals want to STONE people to death? Hardly!
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished, because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Thanks for this
Submitted by GW on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:49am.
I've always enjoyed reading your comments.
Bravo
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:00pm.
Very well said.
Hypocrisy
Submitted by b-dob on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:11am.
How is this blatant bigotry any different than the non-existent bigotry that would be someone deriding Obama for being black?
Hey Scheaffer:
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:47am.
Here's something your dad didn't tell you. The Levitical law you "quote" about stoning gay people was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. God gave his people this law to (1) show them what sin was; and (2) this is what the idol worshiping pagans were doing. God wanted to set his people apart from them.
We are living in the age of grace, the Law of Moses having been fulfilled and made obsolete through Jesus Christ. This is the new covenant God talked about in the Old Testament. We don't stone people any more, unless you are a Muslim. Homosexuality is a forgivable sin, just like fornication.
Mr Scheaffer, I think you would be perfectly happy stoning, literally, people who disagree with you.
Thus endeth the lesson.
These "Christians DO want to stone people once more!!!
Submitted by Ill wind blowing on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:46pm.
Misterbee, please read my post @Ill wind blowing 2:29 PM.
There are Christians who want a theocratic state which would bring back Old Testament laws. They don't care about the Christian abolition of The Law, they just reinterpret the scriptures.
When you check the links in my post below you'll see that this is a serious movement that is creeping upon us without most Americans having a clue as to its existence.
Although they don't mention their intention to revert back to Old Testament Law they do elaborate on their plan to take over society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l0MjCSXF3E
I ll wind blowing, You FAILED to watch your very own video
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 3:52pm.
How exactly do the Christians propose to "take over society"?
You FAIL to notice a difference, bewteen a Spiritual war and a moslem jihad.
You Fail again by suggesting stoning.
How old are your links below.... 1970 or more up to date ones like 1986... lol dud.
You Didn't Build That.
By your definition our FOUNDERS would be...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 8:59pm.
lumped into this class as well. But did THEY seek a theocracy? hardly!
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." - Fisher Ames, Framer of the First Amendment
(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." - Benjamin Franklin
(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
When Christians describe "taking back the culture" they aren't implying what you may think they are. Whereas liberal radicals use deception and judicial fiat to circumvent the law and impose their anti-religion upon the culture, Christians refer to the personal responsibility each of us has to influence the culture for God. The term "take back" is in reference to returning to the rich Christian heritage that once permeated our culture and was vital to the birth of America to begin with. Today, this influence has been brushed aside and all but outlawed in many regards. But since the Church has ALWAYS guided the moral compass of Western culture and has abdicated that responsibility to secularists, many are starting to realize that this was a colossal mistake. Younger generations have nothing to compare modern culture against, but some who are old enough remember a time when morality was important. Today it has become a punch line. There was a time when a loose woman was called out for what she was, but today she is applauded. Sexual deviancy was once shunned by society, today it is congratulated for being "progressive." (Funny, since history proves that deviant behaviors lead to the DEMISE of culture and not the rise of them.)
Our Founders understood that virtue is vital to a healthy society. We can witness first hand what the opposite of that position is producing, a culture devoid of a conscience.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
The Founding Fathers where
Submitted by Ill wind blowing on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:11pm.
The Founding Fathers where Deists not Christians. One of them, Thomas Paine, even wrote a book condemning what he believed was the obscene morality and contradictions of the Bible. The book's title is The Age of Reason.
When Dominionists talk about infiltrating or taking over our society it is with the intent of establishing a Christian Theocracy based on Old Testament laws (yes I know, that's oxymoronic). All you have to do is read Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law.
As far as the Christian culture of this nation is concerned, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that this nation was to be religiously pluralistic in spite of the obvious fact that Christians were the majority.
For example:
"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67
This intent of our Founding Fathers makes it clear that they had no desire to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. Just look at what he said about Hind(us) and infidels (atheists) coming under the mantle of protection by the elimination of the word Jesus Christ.
Do you have any idea of how many; no how few Hindus there were back then? And I'm sure you know that infidels-atheists-are considered to be moral degenerates by those that you define as Christians.
Bottom line, we are no more a Christian nation then we are a white nation. So what if Christians and Whites are the majority?
Deists were Christians.
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:38pm.
Deists were Christians. Thomas Paine's views were not the norm.
And nobody in the mainstream who's saying the country is a "Christian nation" want to make Christianity the official religion of the country, or exclude other religions. They're making a point about the historical background of the Enlightenment, and discussing it in contrast to views hostile to Christianity today.
So, like I said, paranoid.
If you don't want to actually give people credit for having different ideas that disagree with yours, just describe them as a shadowy mass of brainwashed people that you have to combat.
Just paranoid. I've read
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:35pm.
Just paranoid.
I've read about 'dominionism', and I think descriptions of it are exaggerated, but even giving you that they're not, to nonetheless think its a mass movement 'creeping upon us' is paranoia of the worst kind.
Waiting, waiting, waiting...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:21pm.
For the MSM to show the same concern for muslims who practice sharia law and it's consequences. Those are the people who don't like the U.S.A. the way it is, and want to dismantle the Constitution and our laws.
DOMINION CHRISTIANITY IS REAL!!! GOOGLE IT!!!
Submitted by Ill wind blowing on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:29pm.
Why did this article not mention the name of the movement involved? It is known as Dominion Christianity (or Reconstructionism) and it is scaring the heck out of evangelical Christians.
In the following video they explain their plans for taking over every aspect of society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l0MjCSXF3E
The following are evangelical links exposing the Dominionist movement:
http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=71909182461
This demonic cult was founded by Rousa Rushdoony who advocated the infiltration of society at all levels and its transformation into a Theocracy governed by Old Testament Law.
His book, The Institutes of Biblical Law lays the foundation for his Old Testament law based Theocracy. You can find it in the following link. I would advise reading the comments on the book, both pro and con:
http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Biblical-Rousas-John-Rushdoony/dp/08755...
This is what he had to say about Democracy:
"Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life." (Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in Daniel and Revelation, Rousas Rushdoony, 1970, page 39.)
These are some of the Laws that Dominionist Theocracy would enact:
Rape: (but not, it appears of children) See The Institutes of Biblical Law pages 396-397.
Sabbath Breaking: (see Gary North, "The Economics of Sabbath Keeping," in Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 824.) In the words of Mark Rushdoony, son of R.J. Rushdoony, "The divorce problem will be solved in a society under God's law because any spouse guilty of capital crimes (adultery, homosexuality, Sabbath desecration, etc.) would be swiftly executed, thus freeing the other part to remarry.... Parents would be required to bring their incorrigible children before the judge and, if convicted, have them stoned to death." Mark Rushdoony, The Chalcedon Report #252 (1986).
Sex before marriage: (women only) According to Clarkson, Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of unchastity before marriage but this only applied to women.
Idolatry: By Dominionist definition this would include Catholics!
Condemnation the following types of marriage: "...inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish." (The Institutes of Biblical, page 257)
And yes, it does have 'behind the scenes' political connections with people you couldn't imagine:
1. Sarah Palin blessed by a Dominionist minister who gives a standard sermon about "invading", "infiltrate(ing) seven areas of our society". Religious, Economic, Politics, Government, etc.
http://vimeo.com/18721755
2. Newt Gingrich being blessed by 7 Mountains Dominionist minister Lou Engle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzFEt6NrC0g&feature=player_embedded
Time doesn't allow me to post other connections but I strongly urge readers at NewsBusters to look into this cult further.
No, I won't be buying your
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:37pm.
No, I won't be buying your book.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Correction to post @2:29 PM
Submitted by Ill wind blowing on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:59pm.
In my post @07/07 2:29 PM, I made an error.
The statement: "These are some of the Laws that Dominionist Theocracy would enact:" should have read,,"These are some of the Laws that Dominionist Christianity would apply the death penalty to"
You sure?
Submitted by b-dob on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 3:31pm.
This all sounds eerily identical to the current theocracies governing in Muslim countries...