Slashdot Mirror

Because they want the government to fail so we can use the bible as the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DefinitionOfDominionism.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Integration_of_Theory_and_Practice

One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.

Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.

Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.

You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."

"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective

adjective: "noun: the word class that qualifies nouns.
verb: add a modifier to a constituent.
"Taliban" modifies "Christian".

t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.

And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.

And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or

What ethnic cleansing? There's no evidence of that whatsoever.

tell that to those who had their homes destroyed by Bulldozer Sharon. An American protester protecting a home was bulldozed years ago.

What land have they stolen? Gaza strip? West bank? Those are spoils of war. In case you don't remember, Israel was attacked by the combined armies of all their neighbors back in the 60s.

Oh, Palestinians attacked Israelis without provocation? Palestinians not Syrians, Egyptians, or Jordanians?

It's not Israel's fault that the Palestinians don't live in a single, contiguous piece of land. That's just the result of history.

Oh so the lines just appeared on a map of the Middle East as if by magic? No Jews drew them. Ask those British who served in the British Mandate of Palestine during the 1920, '30s, and '40s who the terrorists were. Ask about the Lehi or Stern Gang and others. Members of Lehi were even trained by NAZIs.

All monotheistic religions are bloodthirsty and intolerant. The question is of degree. The Christians haven't as a group been very violent towards "unbelievers" for a few hundred years now.

The Holocaust didn't happen less than 100 years ago? Christians didn't persecute American Indians? If there are any survivor left ask those Indians who were forcibly removed from their parents and sent to Carlisle Indian Industrial School and other boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their own languages and forced to attend Christian churches.

I don't see any examples of extremely bad group behavior on their part since they had Jesus crucified (regardless of whether he was who he claimed he was, he hadn't really done anything criminal, but they all cried for crucifixion)

Not all Jews cried for Jesus's crucifixion (if such a person lived), it was mainly the Pharisees.

I'm not too worried about Jews or Christians murdering me, but I would have to worry about being murdered by a Muslim today if I were to go to the wrong places.

There are just as radical Christians as there are Muslims. They come under various headings or titles such as Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, and others. When Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article criticizing Christian Reconstructionism many got upset because he said they "support for laws 'mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards.'" The leader Rev. Rushdoony wrote back they didn't intend to "put drunkards to death."

Fact is is there are fundamentalist Christians in the US as bad as the worst Taliban. I even suggest googling Christian Taliban and reading some of the results.

No, some things are complex. To make laws is a highly complex issue, ...

A very good point. And I hasten to point out that without a version control system, it would be virtually impossible for a large group to craft such a complex thing as the linux kernel. Now, since making laws is a collaborative exercise often resulting in highly complex legislation (like health care reform), then it stands to reason that the only way to achieve its goals without lots of "bugs" (ie unintended consequences, resource leaks, missing features, etc) would be to use some form of version control with incremental, easily diffed and peer-reviewed changes. The reviews would of course be documented so the public could see the reasoning behind the various components of the laws, and the debates, pro and con, that went into them.

Unfortunately this is not how politics work. The so-called "debate" is actually more like horse-trading. I'll vote to include ammendment X if you vote to allow ammendment Y. Or we'll throw in ammendment Z to get the votes of this particular block. Sadly, openness, peer-reviewing and indeed rational thought are anathema to the political process. Instead, this is a process (at least in the US) that relies upon bizarre procedures and rules, bartering and extortion, featuring such tricks as filibustering (http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html) or procedural loopholes like reconciliation (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02hulse.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all). Small wonder we end up with so many unintended consequences.

Of Course not, no nothing is going on here, move on, we know best: http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/AffidavitPhillipsShowsKerryCouldWinOhio.html

Please allow me to sum it up - it is all about absolute privatization (better known as piratization) resulting in absolute ownership (by the same elements responsible for that privatization thing). Qui bono - it's always about following the money.....

Just because Miller was involved in the story too doesn't mean Libby was the leak.

Miller never printed a story about it, she didn't disclose anything. No leak. And according to her statements, She doesn't exactly claim Libby came right out and said her print this either.

Bob Woodward was the first to get the name. This time line should be helpful in keeping the facts straight.

Now it should be noteful that While bob woodward and judith miller knew first, they didn't publish anything until after Robert Novak did. Novaks article was the effective outing that is causing the stir. Both Noval and Woodward got thier information from Armitage. Libby was interviewed by woodard after the armatage situation but before Miller. Could be a reason why it was there, then again, it could be something else.

North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed).
Ok this is just the ramblings of people like the former Dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University law school. But it's not like powerfull Christians have done public stoning in the US before, well ok just not in the last 300 years.

I know none of this comes as a shock to anyone reading /. but when will it escape being a truism and start being a concern for voters!?

When there's a qualifying exam for voting, like there should be for parenting.

Yes, I realize there's a whole other can of worms there. But, I just learned that two companies (Diebold and ESS) count 80% of all votes in the US. The punch line? The owners of both companies are brothers. (Actually, one is president, the other is a VP.)

Democracy is dead.

Oh, and don't expect to see close races like the last two. Nor 99-100% like Saddam received. It'll be 60/40 in Republican favor: that's not a landslide, and it's also not "too close" to receive support for a recount.

I wish I was joking.

If you print a story about how the Katrina response was limited due to states' rights and the separation and decentralization in the United States' form of government, it's a total yawner if your competitor is convincingly ripping bureaucrats a new one for being maliciously incompetent.

LIE

FEMA was supposed to be there. FEMA was not there.

I don't know if you're a neofascist or what, suggesting that a more centralized government would have saved more people. FEMA stands for Fucking Emergency Management Agency, part of the federal government. Get it? The federal government has a Fucking Emergency Management Agency, to Fucking Manage Emergencies. Nothing about state's rights or anything there, there's a Fucking Emergency Management Agency there with full authorization to take over in event of a natural disaster and Manage a Fucking Emergency.

If FEMA hadn't had their heads up their asses, and had actually done what they were supposed to do, more people would have been saved. Instead, FEMA was headed by some jack-off lawyer that Bush appointed as a policial favor, and did precisely dick until there was a public outcry for them to do something.

What did FEMA do before the entire nation started yelling at them to pull their thumbs out of their asses, wash their thumbs, and fucking manage the emergency? They turned away civilian men with boats who wanted to help rescue people and even cut the emergency telephone lines.

see
http://www.yuricareport.com/Disaster/FemaCutEmerge ncyPhoneLines.html
if you don't believe me; i'm just another ac

So: Nothing about state's rights. That's a damned lie by the people in power in the federal government (read: Republicans), either because they lacked the leadership ability to actually manage an emergency or because they wanted more power and don't care how many people's lives are ruined or lost to get it.

I'm feeling charitable today, so I'm going to ascribe their apparent incompetence to actual incompetence.

At any rate, the jack-off lawyer in charge of FEMA needs to be fired, and its time to consider whether gross incompetence is an impeachable offense.

Possibly because he is, and that's the whole point of his presidency?

The Nazis were fascists, though they also practiced other related ideologies. Perhaps the model fascists, though pioneer Mussolini ran a perhaps ideologically purer fascist state. Economically, they're closely related:

"Nazism shares many economic features with Fascism, featuring complete government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), industry, and agriculture. Yet in both of these systems, corporate power and market based systems for providing price information still existed.

That congruence is a consequence of the essence of fascism:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." (as appropriated by Mussolini from Gentile).

But the trappings of fascism come with the package. State propaganda from the corporate media cartel, abuse of minorities, population control through threats of police violence, all the rest familiar from Nazis, and increasingly obvious in America.

The role of propaganda is primary in fascism ("public relations"). So fascist Nazis called themselves "Socialists", while natural enemies of actual socialism (preying on the proletariat class struggle, etc), in order to coopt socialists and neutralize socialist critics. Just like Bush's "Conservatives", who want to discard the status quo (in favor of radicalism). Politics makes strange bedfellows, and all of those political terms you cited are demonized into false dichtomies - by their political enemies. True libertarians want an end to the state, while true communists consider that development a welcome inevitability. And when we have abundant freedom, liberals are conservative. As an example, Canada has a "Progressive Conservative" party. In some cases, these names are merely cynical advertisements designed to "be all things to all people", masking a narrow agenda that serves only an insider minority. In other cases, they're oxymorons that reflect the transcendence of old limits, not yet described in terms that transcend the historical brand names.

The Democrats helped approve 204 of Bush's nominations last year. They blocked 10. Bush appointed the worst, Thomas Pickering, temporarily using a recess appointment. The Republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees over eight years. The Republicans have no moral high ground to stand on here though they sure act like they do.

Here and Here are a pretty good reference on the threat by the Republican's to change the rules on filibustering judicial nominees, or Here.

This is Senate Rule XXII.

Senator Hatch, right wing extremist that he is and former chair of the Judiciary is the one whose been pushing the "Nuclear Option" which is for the Senate to change this rule so judicial nominees can't be filibustered, or actually so that a filibuster could be ended with a cloture vote requiring a simple majority instead of the current 60%.

According to one reference there is a window at the start of the year where this rule can be voted out with a straight majority vote. For a party to do it they need to control the White House (Check), and have a majority in the Senate(Check). The VP, Dick Cheney, can "rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations.". Then he gets a majority vote and the rule is history. I'm not sure that the Republican's couldn't use various other tacks to strike it down at any time with a majority vote and let the courts work it out though.

Rule XXII on cloture was enacted in 1917. As nearly as I can tell prior to its enactment any senator could fillibuster the Senate single handedly. It created a rule that 2/3rds initially and now 60% of the Senate can block a fillibuster by voting cloture. I'm not sure but I don't think the Senate has, ever in its history, allowed a simple majority to vote cloture. It would destroy the very fabric of the Senate as a moderator on extremism and unchecked majority.

Senator Frist, the Republican Majority leader, has asfar as I can tell declined to change the rule to date but he us still both waffling and threatening. I assume some Republicans are realizing that if they make this change it will appear like they are attempting a power grab and are demuring.

If you hear on the news that the Repulicans have overturned Senate Rule XXII on cloture be aware that this means the Republicans have rendered the Democrats completely powerless, have essentially siezed power and you are for all intents and purposes in a one party state as long as one party has control of the White House and has simple majorities in the House and Senate. I think it would be unprecedented in American history.

The Democrats helped approve 204 of Bush's nominations last year. They blocked 10. Bush appointed the worst, Thomas Pickering, temporarily using a recess appointment. The Republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees over eight years. The Republicans have no moral high ground to stand on here though they sure act like they do.

Here and Here are a pretty good reference on the threat by the Republican's to change the rules on filibustering judicial nominees, or Here.

This is Senate Rule XXII.

Senator Hatch, right wing extremist that he is and former chair of the Judiciary is the one whose been pushing the "Nuclear Option" which is for the Senate to change this rule so judicial nominees can't be filibustered, or actually so that a filibuster could be ended with a cloture vote requiring a simple majority instead of the current 60%.

According to one reference there is a window at the start of the year where this rule can be voted out with a straight majority vote. For a party to do it they need to control the White House (Check), and have a majority in the Senate(Check). The VP, Dick Cheney, can "rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations.". Then he gets a majority vote and the rule is history. I'm not sure that the Republican's couldn't use various other tacks to strike it down at any time with a majority vote and let the courts work it out though.

Rule XXII on cloture was enacted in 1917. As nearly as I can tell prior to its enactment any senator could fillibuster the Senate single handedly. It created a rule that 2/3rds initially and now 60% of the Senate can block a fillibuster by voting cloture. I'm not sure but I don't think the Senate has, ever in its history, allowed a simple majority to vote cloture. It would destroy the very fabric of the Senate as a moderator on extremism and unchecked majority.

Senator Frist, the Republican Majority leader, has asfar as I can tell declined to change the rule to date but he us still both waffling and threatening. I assume some Republicans are realizing that if they make this change it will appear like they are attempting a power grab and are demuring.

If you hear on the news that the Repulicans have overturned Senate Rule XXII on cloture be aware that this means the Republicans have rendered the Democrats completely powerless, have essentially siezed power and you are for all intents and purposes in a one party state as long as one party has control of the White House and has simple majorities in the House and Senate. I think it would be unprecedented in American history.

Thank you. The writers of the FMA left the wording ambiguous for a reason. If you read it carefully, you will realize that even if a state explicitly amends their Constitution to read, "Civil Unions shall have all the rights of Marriage," the FMA will render it unenforceable. Below is a link to an analysis of why the FMA outlaws civil unions.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Civil%20Rights/Analysi sRevisedMarriageAmendment.html