Skip to main content

View Diary: Rick Perry's Dominionism is getting noticed (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please let me know what stage he appeared on (0+ / 0-)

    alongside these people.  I've searched the internet in descriptions of his prayer meeting, and I don't see descriptions of him appearing, as you say, alongside these people on a dais.  Even Rachel Maddow's piece simply says he "associated" with these people, which gives me no facts at all.  In fact, it was Maddow's piece that raised these questions -- when she didn't say anything more specific than that he associated with these people, that is what led me to think this is the same kind of thing that was leveled at President Obama -- guilt by what Maddow called association.  

    If he appeared alongside these people on a dais, surely there's a picture of them together or something like that?    

    •  More than "on the stage with" (28+ / 0-)

      Close partners in organizing the event

      Eight members of The Response “leadership team” are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement. They’re employed or associated with groups like TheCall or the International House of Prayer (IHOP), Kansas City-based organizations at the forefront of the movement. The long list of The Response’s official endorsers—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.

      In a recent interview with the Observer, Schlueter explained that The Response is divinely inspired. “The government of our nation was basically founded on biblical principles,” he says. “When you have a governmental leader call a time of fasting and prayer, I believe that there has been a significant shift in our understanding as far as who is ultimately in charge of our nation—which we believe God is.”
    •  I don't understand your resistance to (9+ / 0-)

      believing that Perry endorses these people and their views. It's clear that the facts indicate that he does more than "associate" with them. He courts their support, recruits their support, legitimizes their views by lending his name and office to events that they help to organize. (See Catte Nappe's comments to you.)

      If you want to see pictures of Perry with these people, I'm sure they exist, but I'm not going to go out on the web and find them for you--just to prove something to you that's already proven, something you're simply not inclined to believe no matter what the evidence.

      It's not "like" the Obama/Jeremiah Wright guilt by association thing, because Obama took pains to distance himself from some of Wright's most extreme views--publicly. Perry, on the other hand, is courting these extremists' support--publicly. If you can't understand the difference there, we can't help you face up to this particular reality.

      One more thing. You wrote:

      Dominionist theory, as I understand it, is something BEYOND that  -- it is believing that government should be based exclusively on the Bible to the exclusion of secular law.

      That is not the Dominionist or Reconstructionist position on the role of law or government. It's more nuanced that; they would not agree that what you have stated there is their position. You need to understand more than you understand about this, or you will not understand either Perry's position or that of the Dominionists. I would advise you to read up on it, to see how "this religio-political ideology" differs from some candidate "openly expressing his or her Christian faith in a public forum.

      Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

      by Bill Prendergast on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:05:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill, I think the poster does have a point to make (8+ / 0-)

        That's the reason I recced the first comment.  While we Liberals are well aware of the role that the Dominionists play in the teaparty wing of the Republican party, most people would read about this and dismiss it as fantasy land conspiracy theory.  

        If we are to alert the electorate to the dangers of people like Perry, Bachmann, and Palin, then we better have our ducks in a row and a smoking gun.  

        The poster may indeed just be putting a monkey wrench in  the thread but I do think had a point.

        It has to be believable to the average voter, or they will just view it as more political rhetoric.

        •  "It has to be believable to the average voter, or (12+ / 0-)

          will just view it as more political rhetoric."

          You said it! And it's worse than that. There's people here who think all our handwringing about the Christian right is just a niche issue, an identity politics issue, another "you know what really pisses me off" issue...

          ...they don't even get it here. And they don't get it in the most liberal outlets in the media. I talk to the guys from the big magazines and most respected newspapers--they think I'm some kind of crank for suggesting "this is really a kind of third party, the way the Dems and Republicans are." (But those guys from the big media outlets keep talking to me anyway, because I have all those lovely primary source documents on Bachmann.)

          Outside of the very small number of people who really do understand that "this thing" is what's driving the GOP these days, and making or breaking presidential candidates--well, most smart people just don't get it.

          Which is a shame, because if the smart people ever do start to get it--this really is a de facto third political party--that points the way to gutting the GOP and the conservative movement. And if the smart people never get how important it is to understand and accept this--well, then, these guys are going to beat us--because they have the media, the God branding, the money, and the millions of warm bodies necessary to make it happen.

          Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

          by Bill Prendergast on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ignorance is being enforced (4+ / 0-)

            by those who demand a standard of conversation that is limited to what they think that low information voters will understand.  This allows the media and political class to justify and preserve their own limited knowledge in this area and not have to stray outside their comfort zone.

            •  Mr. Clarkson--here we disagree... (0+ / 0-)

     my opinion, there's no such thing as "enforcing ignorance." In my opinion, here--in the richest and most powerful culture in history--people are choosing ignorance over wisdom. And they know it.

              There are more sources of information and education available to Americans than ever before--they simply choose whichever source of information they already tend to agree with. And that tends to breed ignorance. They learn a catechism that some cynic wants to teach them, they lean that catechism because the cynic teaching it flatters them--and they think that catechism is reality.

     when something new and big and important comes along, they can't recognize it themselves. Because it wasn't in the catechism taught to them by the cynic that flattered them in order to control them.

              But this situation wasn't forced on anyone. The people who "demand a standard of conversation limited to what they think low information voters will understand"--are the low information voters themselves. As always, the corporate media/ the major media are responding to the market they are trying to manipulate. They know something you don't seem to know: these voters/their audience don't want to understand, they want someone who will think for them, so that they don't have to.

              There is a lot of smart journalism out there; the problem is that practically no one reads it. That's not enforced, that simply reflects a situation where most people are choosing not to read it. They'd rather amuse themselves, and they don't want to be bothered with evaluating new paradigms.

              So: you and me and the rest of the very small number of people who actually understand what is going on with this new American political institution (one that makes Congresses and breaks presidential candidacies)--well, we are going to be perceived as outliers and cranks, until someone with the power to re-write the catechism for his target demographic of non-thinkers decides to teach what we are teaching.

              Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

              by Bill Prendergast on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:11:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You know what's really maddening? (0+ / 0-)

            Those "smart people" don't realize that fundamentalist revolutionaries (because that's what Dominionists are) will "eliminate with extreme prejudice" anyone they believe can subvert their control.

            Historically, Intellectuals have always been in the top 5 of any such list.

            The so-called "rising tide" is lifting only yachts.

            by Egalitare on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:19:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's a very complex issue (0+ / 0-)

            First of all we have to understand that the people we are talking about are stunningly stupid and will believe any piece of hoshit that comes down the road that arouses their tribal prejudices. This has been well-documented by varied writers from Thomas Frank to Joe Bargeant. Many of these people don't, when push comes to shove, give a shit about these ideas or any ideas--it's just a rush to get excited and self-righteous because they are too stupid to have coherent ideas. If you notice the movements they are a moveable feast of positions and ideas that shift around depending on the personalities.

            These ideas are dangerous because they are often promoted and funded and directly manipulated by political operatives (and have been for some time, believe me I have known some of these people socially) who use them as puppets knowing full well that the people they use have, for all intent, lost their minds. They pose no danger in themselves except as prison guards. The danger comes from those that use them both on the local and national level.

            Of course, I could be wrong but, from having been around both operatives and the ignorant right-wingers (not bad people really) that's my own take. Real political work takes educated and able people. The Nazis had a pool of them--they're followers weren't only illiterates--Germany at the time was a far more literate country than ours is now. We are too divided to be ruled by authoritarians. The danger is not dominionism or fascism but civil war and neo-feudalism, i.e., dissolution of the country as a unified whole.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (57)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Culture (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Science (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Elections (15)
  • Education (15)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (14)
  • Economy (14)
  • Republicans (13)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (11)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site