Hoist By Their Own Retard

19 02 2012

It must be tough to be a christian Dominionist these days. They’ve been nibbling quietly away at the foundations of the Constitution for decades without attracting much notice, but now they have a serious PR problem. It seems that a bunch of Dominionists have managed to get in front of cameras over the past few months, and- to their dismay- have been spouting christian Dominion and similar theocratic drivel out in public. Worse still (from the Dominionist point of view), the enormous majority of the American public which is inherently opposed to Dominion Theology has seen or heard these American Taliban on TV and the internet. To further complicate the theocrats’ work, the video of their pet political mouthpieces has been aired unedited, and the press has been crucifying these religious fuckheads using nothing more than their own words- verbatim.

One would suppose that christian theocrats would be used to getting eviscerated in public- it tends to happen whenever one of them speaks candidly anywhere near a camera. They’ve apparently been spouting christian theocracy propaganda at each other for so long that some of them actually believe that their extremist positions are shared by the majority of Americans. As a result of this cognitive dissonance, several prominent would-be theocrats tend to babble freely to the media about supplanting the Constitution with their own version of Iranian theocracy, which generally makes every American with anything resembling a room-temperature IQ think that the Dominionists are bat-shit insane. The current untenable state of their affairs gets rather more ludicrous when they feebly demand that media organization stop posting unedited versions of christian Dominionist speeches- because the unedited comments of Dominionist mouth-breathers  make the American Taliban look bad. One could say they’re being hoist by their own retards (I really wish I’d come up with that phrase, but I stole it from one of the more clever commenters on FARK.com)

Assuming you can bear the toxic levels of derp, cast your gaze upon Rick Santorum. This imbecile honestly believes that a majority of Americans want to join him in creating a christian Caliphate here in the US. He has babbled freely and at great length about making extra- and pre-marital sex illegal, of federal investigations for murder against women who miscarry, creating a federal commission to evaluate college and university professors to ensure they are “conservative enough”, and that rape victims who get pregnant should accept the pregnancy as “God’s gift”. Why is this person allowed to wander about without psychiatric help, much less run for President?

Let’s take a brief look at christian dominion theology, where a lot of this bullshit has its roots. The christian fanatics who embody this “movement” believe that they have been called by their god to take over the institutions of power by any means necessary so they can bring about the return of their messiah. Dominion Theology teaches that it is their christian duty to take over the world politically or militarily and impose a christian theocratic government ruling by biblical fiat. They believe that their Christ will not return until their church has overthrown all of the world’s governments and civil institutions. This belief is not popular even among fellow christians, many of whom quietly decry the dominionist fanaticism. Those who agree with Dominion Theology have therefore been generally circumspect in what they say and to whom, limiting discussion of their true motives to small groups of like-minded lunatics.

Make no mistake, these people are out of their tiny little minds. They aren’t necessarily stupid (although many of them are), but their ability to deceive themselves that they’re doing this for the good of all while simultaneously trying desperately to conceal what they’re really up to from everyone except fellow believers is at best a type of group psychosis. You can’t have it both ways, people. If what you’re trying to accomplish really is in the best interests of everyone else, concealing your motives and activities from those people is disingenuous and counter-productive. Last I looked, there were perhaps a billion christians on the planet, separated by a common religious history. Almost every one of the multitudes of christian sects poisonously hates all of the others. Even if every single adherent of some flavor of christianity were fire-breathing fanatics about it (which is demonstrably not the case), the fact that each sect is smugly certain that only their particular set of beliefs and practices are the “right” ones and everyone else is a heretical unbeliever tends to reduce their effective numbers dramatically. The Pope can’t even count on the loyalty of all catholics, for example. Yet somehow these aggressively independent splinter groups will impose their will upon the six billion non-believers who share the planet with them.


Fortunately, those of us who do not share in the beliefs of the Dominionists have a wonderful weapon at our disposal to defeat the christian jihadists among us- their own words. Much as I despise the media in this country, they’ve been doing an acceptable job of shining a light on the cockroaches of christian dominion theology. The dominionists do their best to scuttle out of sight when the lights come on, but they’ve wandered too far from shelter by putting forward one of their own in major political campaign. Too many of their colleagues and fellow-believers have been caught on camera telling the world exactly what they intend to do once they get the power, thereby helping ensure that this will not happen. Everyone else in the US is looking at these misogynistic, reactionary fuckwits and seeing them for what they really are: a collection of backward, sexist, racist, and deeply stupid people who espouse turning back the clock to the “good old days” of the dark ages. A time when men were men, and women were property. A time when only white male landowners were allowed to have a say in the affairs of government, and dark-skinned people were either servants or slaves. They’re also too stupid and smugly certain of their own righteousness to successfully hide their motives and goals from those of us who aren’t bigoted shitheads. All it takes is a camera or sound recorder, and they all-too-eagerly let it all out.

And that is the only good thing to come out of the current political season.

Current status: Bemused

Current music: Such Great Heights by The Postal Service



9 responses

20 02 2012

You have to watch out for those evil dominionists like Thomas Jefferson who write scandalous things such as:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic which puts him as far outside the Dominion Theology line as a Marxist.

I suppose quoting an authoritative source such as the Daily Kos, might give some serious people pause. Maybe they are a little prone to exaggeration? Sometimes?

If you really want to see a dominionist, check out Gary Demar at americanvision.org. You can see how subversive it really is.

Religious liberty is a founding priciple, protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Santorum’s personal religious views aren’t any more relevent than Mitt Romney’s or Barack Hussein Obama.

What is a concern is that Barack Hussein Obama is using the power of the state to coerce people and institutions on matters of conscience. The only Taliban I see here are the haridens of Planned Parenthood who will allow no opposition to government funded eugenics.

20 02 2012

jrtuck– Methinks you should read some of Jefferson’s other writings if you think he could possibly be taken for a christian dominionist. Jefferson is the one who came up with the phrase about a “wall of separation between church and state“, for just one example. This is exactly the opposite of dominion theology.

Santorum may or may not be a dominionist, but his public statements and writings show him to be, at minimum, sympathetic to their goals. In lieu of deriding an article from DailyKos, perhaps you should see if the information I presented is accurate. There’s a link in the short Kos article showing Santorum saying exactly what I claim he said. I have no need to take things out of context, any more than the Daily Show does. The words of these christian fundamentalist shitbags are more than enough to condemn them. I have read many of the dominionist websites. These people are exactly as I have described them, with exactly those motives and goals. A simple Google search for “dominion theology”, “christian reconstructionism”, “Army of Joel”, “kingdom now”, “tenth crusade”, “seven mountains”, and “theonomy” ought to give any rational American the galloping willies. These people want to create a theocracy in America and rule it via the old testament of the bible. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I submit that Santorum’s public statements and writings about forcing other Americans who do not share his version of christianity to comply with christian teachings are enormously relevant to his run for political office. The same holds true for any other would-be ruler in this country. They are free to believe what they want to believe, but not to force others to believe the same way. Santorum is on record as wanting to make sex between consenting adults illegal in this country because he thinks it violates his church’s teachings. If that doesn’t scare you, then perhaps you’re not paying attention.

Your last paragraph deserves only one response: “Citation needed“. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Please list your evidence for these extraordinary claims. I have actually read the text of the ruling on providing contraception to female employees as part of employer health insurance. Have you? You may also wish to do some reading on the Taliban and their stated goals, then compare them to the stated goals of the dominionist right in this country. I have. You may also choose to look into the recent bill in the Virginia Legislature requiring all women desiring an abortion to be forced to undergo a medically-unnecessary and extremely invasive procedure beforehand. Then try to explain the reasoning behind this proposed law without resorting to religious arguments. I’ll wait.

20 02 2012

Here is the entire context of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, written in response to a letter requesting that he declare a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Something that each of his predecessors had done, and many of his successors as well.

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

I tend to agree with Jefferson’s sentiments from the standpoint that Congress and Executive should assiduously avoid the appearance of sectarian favoratism. However, some have taken this to the extreme position that the government should be anti-religious, which this particular letter manifestly is not.

Jefferson’s took care to describe his position as limiting the scope and power of the government within the bounds of the Constitutional mandate, which didn’t prevent the Danbury Baptists from calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, but only constrained the government from declaring it officially.

However subsequent Presidents have felt differently and have pretty much vitiated Jefferson’s position:


I suppose you can call anybody who enjoys a federal holiday, and happily sings God Bless American, and America the Beautiful during the festivities a dominionist, but I don’t think that makes anybody an extremist.

Here is a citation from that extremist publication Forbes:


21 02 2012

jrtuck– You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but I will take Santorum, et al, at their words and assume that they intend to impose their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them. No matter how hard you try, you cannot deflect attention from these proclamations from the lips of christian fundamentalists- including Rick Santorum. Santorum and various christian fundamentalists have made it quite clear that this is their goal, should they achieve the power or authority to do so. These people are proclaiming their desire to violate the First Amendment prohibition against establishing a religion (or preventing the free exercise thereof). I am not trying to get the government to enforce my religious views on anyone. Rick Santorum is quite vocal about the fact that he is. By their spoken and printed words, christian fundamentalists have made it clear that they wish to impose the tenets of their religion upon the people of the United States- in direct violation of the law of the land.

Whatever your opinion of that law of the land, the final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional (the Supreme Court) has ruled that the prohibition against the government establishing a religion extends to such things as keeping the government’s nose out of a woman’s personal medical decisions and the private affairs between consenting adults. Please see Griswold v Connecticut. In other words, if you have a problem with women using birth control or with what any two consenting adults choose to engage in for sex, that’s your problem. You cannot get the government to take away peoples’ rights just because their actions do not comply with your particular religion. Religion is like a penis. It’s fine if you have one. You can even play with it if you like. Just quit trying to force it down peoples’ throats.

As for the complaint that the President is taking action against the catholic church, one is forced to wonder why the church did not start a massive smear campaign against the two dozen or so states which have had identical laws requiring insurance companies to cover female contraception for years. One also has to wonder how those bishops can believe the church retains any vestiges of moral high ground whatsoever which might make their ex cathedra opinions worth considering.

For the record- and in response to your straw man- I do not call anyone who sings God Bless America or America the Beautiful an extremist or a dominionist. Nor do I begrudge anyone the free worship of whatever deity or deities gives them pleasure- so long as that worship does not infringe upon the rights of others. Any person’s right to be religious ends where it deprives anyone else of their rights. Preventing religious zealots from persecuting non-believers is not itself persecution.

20 02 2012

jrtuck sounds like a dominionist trying to duck away from the evidence.
But the really bad news is that the stronger we get the harder they are going to push back. They may even gang up with the fundie jews & islames. Until they win then they will get them too cuz they aren’t too bright. But then maybe after they win the islames will hit back harder and quicker and we will have the satisfaction of having the dominionist really loosing big time. But that still wont work out well for us.

22 02 2012

Mr Archvillain,

I see your point, but I don’t think Mr. Santorum has any desire to have congress establish a state religion. I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I don’t want them running our country any more than you do. To say that claim that a coalition of Evangelicals and Catholics are trying to establish a theocratic state is a tin foil hat conspiracy theory worthy of Art Bell, certainly not a careful thinker like yourself. In fact I would put that concern on par with the birther issue.

Nevertheless it is important to know that America has a long history of acknowledging a common civic position of respecting religion and tolerating people of different faiths. Muslims, Christians and Jews have profound differences but a common interest in preserving a civil society that respects individual liberty and freedom of conscience.

Like you I resent people who attempt to shove their religious views down my throat. Like those souls who worship anthropogenic global warming, sexual libertinism, marxist economic theory, liberation theology, food nazism, anti-smoking campaigns, labor unions, the welfare state, and space aliens. There are no institutions nor theory nor religion that is beyond criticism.

Not everybody sees state sponsored eugenics, human trafficking, prostitution as a universal good.Many people resent the attempt to silence them through the use of coercive state power.

The attempt to ban the expression of religious views from the public square is fascistic. (Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church?)

My views on the Roman Catholic church are that they are complicit in this trap they laid for themselves going back many years when they got on the government social welfare train. (to be opposed to government welfare, is not the same as being opposed to welfare in general)

There is good reason the founding fathers, Jefferson foremost among them were adamant about limiting the scope and power of the government.

Some of us see Mr. Santorum as a man comitted to the principles that make this country free, and enable all of us to pursue the blessings of liberty. Religious people are as much a part of this country as anybody else, and have the same right to expound on whatever issue suits them.

They are also free to run for office and appeal for votes from whomever and however they deem it appropriate.

Finally I’d like to address your last paragraph. Because what you are articulating is exactly the same thing a slave owner would have said to an abolitionist in the 1850s. Or maybe what a segregationist may have said to an anti-segregationist in the 1960s. Each of the those movements appealed to and were strongly driven by sincere religious moral values.

As a thinking person, would you agree that people should stand up for those things that they believe are issues of morality and decency. Mr. Bonhoeffer gave up his life to defeat the fascists. In America we are hoping to turn the tide before it gets that far.

You don’t have to agree, just recognize that honest people can have sincere disagreements, but still maintain a civil society.

26 02 2012

jrtuck– Let’s lay this to rest, shall we?

You said: I don’t think Mr. Santorum has any desire to have congress establish a state religion.

You can call it what you choose, but Santorum’s public statements and writings show that he intends to use the power of the federal government to impose his religious beliefs upon the rest of the country. I don’t care what his religious beliefs may be, he doesn’t get to force anyone else to follow them. Period. Full stop.

You said: To say that claim that a coalition of Evangelicals and Catholics are trying to establish a theocratic state is a tin foil hat conspiracy theory worthy of Art Bell,

Sorry, but I never claimed anything of the sort. What I did claim is that there are christian groups within the US who have their stated goal making the Constitution subordinate to the bible. This is demonstrably true, using their own words and writings, and also demonstrably at odds with the wishes of the majority of people in this country.

You said: Not everybody sees state sponsored eugenics, human trafficking, prostitution as a universal good.Many people resent the attempt to silence them through the use of coercive state power.

I have yet to see any citations from any reputable source stating that the US is engaged in “state-sponsored” eugenics, human trafficking, or prostitution. Since these unsupported assertions are also not relevant to the topic at hand, I will henceforth ignore them.

You said: The attempt to ban the expression of religious views from the public square is fascistic.

Expressing one’s religious views in public are not being banned by anyone in this country. What is being restricted is the expression of religious views by government entities, in line with the Supreme Court’s rulings that such are violations of the First Amendment. Any individual can express their religious views to their heart’s content- provided that expression does not violate the rights of others. Government entities such as public schools, local/state/federal governments, and courts are denied the option of supporting/encouraging/denigrating/preventing any particular religion or reigious expression. Students are allowed to hold prayer meetings on school grounds- regardless of whether or not they worship the christian god. Public servants are permitted to pray- even in public- without violating the First Amendment, so long as they permit those who do not share their beliefs to follow their own consciences. In short, I see no evidence of anti-religious fascism.

You said: There is good reason the founding fathers, Jefferson foremost among them were adamant about limiting the scope and power of the government.

Here, we are in agreement. I believe that the government has been engaging in extending its power at the expense of individual liberties for at least the last seventy years.

You said: Some of us see Mr. Santorum as a man comitted to the principles that make this country free, and enable all of us to pursue the blessings of liberty. Religious people are as much a part of this country as anybody else, and have the same right to expound on whatever issue suits them.

You may believe what you wish about Santorum, but I will take him at his words. His public statements and writings have shown him to be hostile to the rights of others. He and other religious zealots do indeed have the right to say what they wish (provided they do not thereby violate the rights of others), and the rest of us have the right to mock and belittle them for their public utterances. No one’s freedom of speech includes the right to be free from public ridicule. If you say something in public, the public can- and will- respond as they see fit.

You said: Finally I’d like to address your last paragraph. Because what you are articulating is exactly the same thing a slave owner would have said to an abolitionist in the 1850s. Or maybe what a segregationist may have said to an anti-segregationist in the 1960s. Each of the those movements appealed to and were strongly driven by sincere religious moral values.

To which last paragraph are you referring? The last paragraph of my original post, where I exulted in the fact that the religious extremists are shooting themselves in the foot by speaking openly about their objectives and thereby pissing off everyone who isn’t an extremist? Or the last paragraph of my latest reply to you, when I re-stated my willingness to permit others to believe what they wish- provided that belief did not infringe upon the rights of others? How could any of that be taken by any rational person as comparable to opposing abolitionists or the anti-segregation movements? Here’s the key phrase, which I have repeated many times in many different posts and replies: “so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others”. Your right to throw a punch ends at someone else’s nose. Your right to say what you like ends where it causes harm to others (slander, libel, yelling “fire” in a theater, etc). Your right to believe in the deity of your choice ends where those beliefs infringe upon the rights of others. We do not permit people to conduct human sacrifice, for one ridiculous example, even if it is part of their religious practices. You need to look at the case of Griswold v Connecticut that I alluded to in my previous reply.

Since you seem to be a fan of Rick Santorum, very little of what I say is likely to change your mind. You are free, of course, to vote your opinion in the primaries and the general election. I will defend to the death your right to do so, and spent a decade and a half of my life in the military for the purpose of defending the rights of all Americans. If you disagree with my contention that Rick Santorum is a religious fanatic who wishes to impose his moral opinions upon the rest of the country, that is your privilege. All I ask is that you permit others the privilege of their own opinions, even if they are contrary to yours. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Not everyone who disagrees with me is my enemy. Rick Santorum has provided me with enough justification to consider him the enemy of the First Amendment to the US Constitution by his public written and spoken words. I am exercising my First Amendment right to articulate that belief with this blog.

27 02 2012

I got a kick out of the hot flashes, Santorum supporter Foster Freis engendered with his comment about an aspirin between the knees. The fanatical hyperventilation over those remarks were significantly more reactionary than anything Santorum may have said. Your association of Dominionism with Roman Catholism betrays either profound ingnorance or deliberate bigotry. Trying to connect the two defies logic. Santorum has rightfully pointed out that the imposition of moral self-righteousness by environmental, animal rights, anti-smoking, global warming, and social justice movements..etc is, by an order of magnitude, more extreme and consequential a threat to liberty than anything any so-called dominionist has ever achieved.

1 03 2012


While I wouldn’t consider myself aligned with theonomy, I’m more of a traditional civil society conservative with libertarian leanings.

Nevertheless, as a courtesy, I just wanted to drop you a note. I got this off a site that is unabashedly theonomist: For the benefit of you and your readers a theonomic defense of libertarianism:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: