Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
One of the fascinating things about the Palin story to me is how it has demonstrated the split between the mainstream religious right and the far, far religious right. I'm talking about the serious whackos like reconstructionists, the ones even the wingnuts think are wingnuts. While most religious righters have embraced Sarah Palin's candidacy as one of their own, the really hardcore nuts are saying that women should never be in a position of authority over men under any circumstances.
Where do you find the serious whackos? You find them at Covenant News, home of folks like Gary North, Gary DeMar, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul. And there you'll find articles by folks like Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Wisconsin. Like this one, which says that Palin's candidacy exposes "America's manhood deficiency."
After watching a week of ridiculous attacks on Sarah Palin which so clearly exposed, yet again, the rank hypocrisy of the left and their lapdog media, I was almost ready to vote for McCain and Palin myself. Almost.But I won't. I was never keen on McCain to begin with, and his decision to add a woman to his ticket sealed my decision. I won't vote for them. Why? Because I'm a sexist (as many accuse)? No. But because I'm a theist.
I believe in the God of the Bible and I want to see my life conducted according to His Word, and the life of our nation reflect the teaching of His Word. I will not throw my vote behind the Christ-hating egalitarian agenda of the socialist elitists of this nation.
Egalitarianism, as defined by the elitists, is the design to erase all distinctions between males and females from society. If you have not noticed this agenda pushed in our society, you are either hopelessly naïve or just plain stupid. I could give examples from every aspect and quarter of our culture.
From the time they are young boys, the onslaught to effeminize, neuter, and rob males of their manhood begins in this culture and continues relentless upon them till the day they die. The agenda creates confusion in males regarding what exactly their role as men is. The agenda results in rampant male irresponsibility.
God's Word is clear that men and women have distinct roles in which they are to function - both being dear and important to the design of God. Nevertheless, I regularly run into Christian couples who have no idea that, biblically, there are distinctions for men and women. They have no problem with the man staying home and the woman being the provider. They pompously challenge me (as they condescendingly look at me as though I'm some kind of cultural Neanderthal) to show them "one scripture" which states the woman is to stay at home and the man is to go out and provide. This is how bad the confusion is in our nation, even among those who should know God's ways.
And wouldn't you know it, the problem isn't just that women are allowed to hold positions of leadership, the problem is that they are allowed to vote in the first place. Allowing women to vote, you see, is a socialist idea that emasculates men:
The egalitarian agenda has been pushed in this nation for about 100 years now, and is historically rooted in socialism. The Suffrage movement, wherein women obtained the right to vote, was manufactured by socialists who - because of the Christian consensus in the country at that time - guardedly used Christian words (and dress) to move their God-hating agenda forward. You can go to countless pro-abortion and pro-homosexual (lesbian) websites today which boast of their roots being founded in the Suffrage movement.Today, almost all people (including Christians) cannot fathom what caused these cultural Neanderthals to even think that a woman should not be allowed to vote. Truth is, they had a plethora of reasons. For example, the agenda was to "liberate" women to vote, and thus "denigrate" the role of men as heads of their homes, as their own wives could now vote against them regarding matters of public policy. Hence, Christian people opposed suffrage because it was viewed as an attack upon the structure of the Christian family. This is a huge presuppositional and theological matter.
The socialists, statists, humanists - the God-haters - have always hated God's order for family and spend their lives trying to destroy the Christian concept of family and to re-define "family" to what they think "family" should mean. The Suffrage movement was part of that process for them, and Sarah Palin running for vice-president is a continuation of that process. The leftists are just mad because they wanted "their girl" to be first. But most people on the right have become socialists themselves, hence the pom-pom waving for Sarah.
Vox Day to the white courtesy phone.
Politics
Comments
Y'know, just when I think I've seen the depths of religious stupidity, it turns out there's yet *another* level of stupidity to be found. ::headdesk::
Not only are we (that is, sane people) destroying families by insisting that gay people can have families, we're destroying families by...letting women vote? Wow. That's some hardcore stupidity there.
Posted by: Mara | September 16, 2008 9:37 AM
Wait what? Us 'elitists' have an egalitarian agenda?
Does this guy even read what he writes?
Posted by: MarkW | September 16, 2008 9:44 AM
I love how he implies that being a theist means he can't be a sexist. I also love how egalitarianism, "as defined by elitists" promotes people to be truly equal. Newspeak is so entertaining.
Posted by: Shygetz | September 16, 2008 9:50 AM
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. (Not you Ed, you agreed with me.) When Palin was announced and people were calling her a dominionist, I wrote on this blog that that was inaccurate, and one of several reasons I gave was the patriarchal leanings of true dominionists.
Posted by: heddle | September 16, 2008 9:52 AM
1. Not by any means a false dichotomy.
2. Neither by any means a necessity.
But hey, Rev. Trewhella, you're sure welcome not to vote for McCain if it pleases you! I won't cry if your congregation and many others follow...
Posted by: Gretchen | September 16, 2008 9:52 AM
OK, Trewhella's a whacko. I just wish that the "moderate" religious right would at least admit that Trewhella's interpretation of the Bible is spot-on when it comes to the notion of women and authority. The man is the head of the woman, saith Paul quite clearly. I wish so-called "believers" in the Bible would honestly face up to what that book actually asks them to believe: turn the other cheek, give away your coat, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and of course kill adulterous women.... I wish people like Palin would face up to the fact that a truly "Bible-based" society would look a lot more like Taliban Afghanistan than suburban megachurch America.
Posted by: Eveningsun | September 16, 2008 9:53 AM
I would love to know the number of people who would not have otherwise chosen to vote for McCain but now will, due to his female VP choice, as compared to the number of now will not vote for him due to his female VP choice.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 16, 2008 10:02 AM
Susan B Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Smith campaigned for equal rights for American women since (at least) July 1848, the First International was held in London in 1864.
Those damned time travelling socialists ruin everything!
Particullarly the 160 year history of female sufferage in America.
But hey, why let little 'ol facts get in the way of rightwing wingnuttery -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 16, 2008 10:07 AM
Posted by: Eric | September 16, 2008 10:11 AM
The way to view this stuff is not as politics or religion, but as a psychiatric disorder.
Posted by: g347 | September 16, 2008 10:27 AM
Fundie whacko:
Eric:
What guy doesn't?
Oh, yeah, Ted Haggard. :P
One wonders if all the homophobic moralistic nutcases are drug-addicted gay whoremongers.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 16, 2008 10:30 AM
NO! Phantom say it ain't so!
And he was me thinking Ted Haggsrd it completely heterosexual, glory hallelujah! - ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 16, 2008 10:37 AM
Who was it that suggested that we find/replace "family" with "patriarchy" in these kinds of diatribes?
Posted by: nedlum | September 16, 2008 10:37 AM
Don't worry, someone will get to these guys and whisper in their ears, "don't worry Trewhella, if and when Johnny Mac kicks it, Sarah has promised to resign in favor of her family, due to the unanticipated stress of the presidency thus setting back the women's agenda 100 years and proving to the country as a whole that women are not meant to lead."
Posted by: lauram | September 16, 2008 10:40 AM
John Lofton's opinion:
McCain will end up getting more of the evangelical vote than he would have with a different choice, but there are a lot that will sit this one out. The various Pentecostal denominations are used to female leadership to some extent, but McCain just punted a lot of Baptists.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 16, 2008 10:43 AM
Oh Lord. Lets see here - my mother was a stay at home mom, was taught to hunt by my father, played sports, went to church (hell - taught sunday school), blew things up, even dated a girl or two ... a rather christian and manly upbringing I would say - and I still turned out being gay ...
Posted by: yoshi | September 16, 2008 10:46 AM
kehrsam,
With you I respectfully disagree. I know a lot of Baptists--actually a lot of conservative Baptists. I do not know a single one who is turned off by the Palin choice. No doubt there are some, but I haven't encountered one. Now it may have cost McCain the dominionist vote, but they are mostly Presbyterian and non-denominational--and all in all not a very large group, and one that probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. But I suspect it was a huge plus among Baptists.
Posted by: heddle | September 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Oh, yes, the day after the announcement, I saw this....and it is women!
Posted by: Coturnix | September 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Yet another fundie who doesn't read the Bible insisting that his views are Biblical. I wonder how he'd explain Chloe in first Corinthians, an early christian church obviously headed by a woman. Or how he'd justify the fact that the women of the gospels are depicted as having stronger faith than the men and were more willing to challenge authority (likely because they had less to lose in terms of power and property).
Nah, they'll ignore the facts and concentrate on making the words fit their oppresive worldview.
Posted by: kodiak | September 16, 2008 10:59 AM
I will not throw my vote behind the Christ-hating egalitarian agenda of the socialist elitists of this nation.
Wow, what level of wing-nut do you have to be to consider McCain a Christ-hating egalitarian? McCain a socialist? Wowsers...
I also love the egalitarian elitist ... oxymorons for $1000 Alex?
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 16, 2008 11:01 AM
Heddle, I'd love to hear your sources for the claims that dominionists are mostly Presbyterian (note, you didn't say First-Presbyterian which is a horse of another color).
Posted by: kodiak | September 16, 2008 11:06 AM
Kodiak - That would be a pale horse, I presume? - DJ
Posted by: DingjoJack | September 16, 2008 11:13 AM
Actually in the gospels, it says that instead of killing adulterers, he who is without sin should cast the first stone, i.e. nobody. Similarly in the Pauline epistles, sexual misconduct in the fledgling churches is dealt with by removing the offenders from the congregation, a far cry from killing. There is also the passage in the new testament where it tells husbands and wives to submit to each other. The new testament is considered by Christians to override the laws of the old testament. It's always amusing when non-believers insist the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is the only true one, and even more so when they get their facts wrong.
Posted by: zy | September 16, 2008 11:29 AM
kodiak,
The recognized intellectual leaders of the movement are: Greg Bahnsen, R. H, Rushdoony, Gary North and Gary DeMar. All are Presbyterians, which I am sure their Wikipedia entries will confirm.
The movement is based on the end times view known as postmillennialism, which, though once the dominant eschatology in the US, is now almost exclusively confined to hard core conservative Presbyterians. That view, unlike the rapture-initiated Left-Behind-ism, holds that things will get dramatically better, not dramatically worse, before Christ returns. The dominionists want to help the process along by creating a theocracy.
Posted by: heddle | September 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Palin's candidacy exposes "America's manhood deficiency."
I thought all those emails in my spam folder had already corrected that problem.....
Posted by: Coragyps | September 16, 2008 11:34 AM
Don't worry, someone will get to these guys and whisper in their ears, "don't worry Trewhella, if and when Johnny Mac kicks it, Sarah has promised to resign in favor of her family, due to the unanticipated stress of the presidency thus setting back the women's agenda 100 years and proving to the country as a whole that women are not meant to lead."
---------
Didn't you hear, she is Vp-in-name-only, as her husband Todd has control over her like every Bibble-Believing-Manly-Man should have. He just hides it a little bit.
Posted by: Badger3k | September 16, 2008 11:35 AM
Because I frequently have insomnia, I sometimes visit one of the larger multi-denominational Christian forums, where atheists are allowed (although bound by many, many rules) in some 'unclean' areas.
The subject of women and men's dominance is frquently raised, and the amount of weaseling by Christians to either pretend those verses mean something else, or jummy them around to make them meaningless in the real world (including bringing up every vague reference to gender equality they can sift out of the Biblical morass), is just amazing. The other approach, of course, is the quite vocal element who uphold those verses as if their ability to wear pants would vanish if a woman held any power of any kind.
There are more of this last class than you'd think, and the only reason they would support Palin is because, at least unless McCain drops dead, there's a man 'over her'.
Posted by: Bee | September 16, 2008 11:35 AM
Oooh, couldn't pass up this little gem:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/sarah_palin_and_the_complement.aspx
Nice blog post proving that Alfred Mohler and some other "egalitarian" minister who said that Palin is OK are just WRONG wrong WRONG according to the Holy Buybull. And I hereby submit my vote for "best oxymoron of the year" to the phrase "thinking biblically".
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 11:38 AM
Mara wrote:
I know what you mean, but like Ed says, these are "the ones even the wingnuts think are wingnut." It's not how crazy are the craziest wingnuts, but how crazy are the average wingnuts that matters to the election.
That's not a pretty picture either:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/09/you-should-have-expected-spanish.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 16, 2008 11:38 AM
"I believe in the God of the Bible and I want to see my life conducted according to His Word, and the life of our nation reflect the teaching of His Word."
Did this guy at least sacrify an animal to God before writing his blog post? Does he think that the president of the USA should do so, and behave like the ancient kings of Israel? And what about slavery?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 16, 2008 11:51 AM
Where do you find the serious whackos? You find them at Covenant News, home of folks like Gary North, Gary DeMar, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul.
How is this the "home" of Ron Paul? These people support Ron Paul. Big deal. This makes this website his home? I guess Ron Paul must have more homes than John McCain because he's supported by many websites that have nothing to do with each other, whether they are antiwar or pro-hemp or whatever.
Posted by: douche | September 16, 2008 11:52 AM
Heddle, my apologies, being raised with strong family connections to the Presbyterian Church in Canada I relate the phrase as less encompassing than those rasied in the USA apparently do. In particular I would associate any of the recognized churches in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches as holding similar theology to the Presbyterian church. And I note that most of the churches identifying as Presbyterian in the USA do not belong to that group.
My mistake, and I will be more careful in addressing the term Presbyterian in the future.
Posted by: kodiak | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM
Heddle is mostly right, but let me clear up one little quibble. The term "dominionist" is broader than the term "reconstructionist." There are dominionists who are not reconstructionists. But the ones he mentioned -- Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North and DeMar -- are all reconstructionists and reconstructionists are Calvinists and thus, usually, Presbyterian (though there are also independent Calvinist churches outside of that denomination). Reconstructionists, as he correctly notes, are post-millenarian. That's one big theological distinction between them and your average religious righter, the vast majority of whom are pre-millenarian (thus the enormous popularity of the Left Behind books and end-time eschatology in general).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 12:04 PM
" I guess Ron Paul must have more homes than John McCain"
When you consider how many years he let almost every racist around spread hatred and ignorance in his newsletters, Ron Paul is probably welcome in the home of every Neo-Nazi and KKK member in the country.
Posted by: Dean | September 16, 2008 12:08 PM
kodiak,
None needed, you asked a legitimate question.
Posted by: heddle | September 16, 2008 12:10 PM
zy,
I have to disagree with you. I was a Seventh-Day Adventist for several years. SDAs certainly do not feel the NT overrides or negates the OT entirely. Some laws or commandments are superseded, but not all of them. It has been my experience that many Christians agree with this interpretation, hence the effort by some Christians to have the Ten Commandments placed in courthouses and such. I'm sure there are many Christians who feel the same way you do, but there are also many who don't.
Posted by: peaches | September 16, 2008 12:11 PM
douche wrote:
It is the "home" of Ron Paul in precisely the same way it is the "home" of all the others I mentioned. They print everything he writes. Unlike the others, though, Ron Paul gets his own section on the sidebar - "Ron Paul news."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 12:32 PM
Sarah Palin is twice the man Matt Trewhellen is.
Posted by: CJColucci | September 16, 2008 12:37 PM
Want an eye opening experience in relation to the ignorance of your average American? Go stand in front of your local grocery store and try to solicit signatures for a petition to end women's suffrage. When asked for details, make only vague statements about what you're doing, for example, "We feel women's suffrage has gone on far to long. We plan to send this petition to every Congressman in a plea that they do all they can to abolish it."
If more then one in twenty shows any sign they know what you're really talking about you'll do better then I did. Most will think you are trying to help women who are suffering and sign. Just be sure to wear your running shoes, because that one who gets it is likely to be pretty pissed. (All due credit to The Man Show for inspiring this idea.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 16, 2008 12:38 PM
zy,
In re-reading your comment it appears you were speaking of the NT overriding the OT punishments for breaking laws, not the laws themselves. If that's the case I apologize, I misunderstood your point. Most Christian still accept some OT laws, but not the punishment for breaking those laws. There are a few groups who actually do advocate for stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death, and those are the folks that scare even the ultra-conservative religious right.
Posted by: peaches | September 16, 2008 12:41 PM
The irony is, none of this even touches Sarah Palin's connections to Joel's Army, the dominionist breakaway cult that you probably haven't heard of. (I didn't.) Read about Joel's Army here. [source: SPLC]
Posted by: Kristine | September 16, 2008 12:44 PM
I'm curious how dominionists justify themselves. I'm no biblical scholar, but they seem to come from a "the end justifies the means" theology. They remind me more of Nietzsche's "will to power" than Christ's "the meek shall inherit the earth".
Growing up in mostly liberal, Catholic churches, i was always taught to think that Christ's message was more about being humble, non-judgmental, and being compassionate toward even your enemies. How do dominionists get the idea that Christs wants them to grab the reins of power and rule over everyone else?
Posted by: Caliban | September 16, 2008 12:48 PM
Abby Normal, you just gave me one hell of an idea for a YouTube question for Palin during the debates! (The Man Show was frequently brilliant, although I couldn't stand Aaron Hamill.)
Posted by: Kristine | September 16, 2008 1:37 PM
Kristine-
The connections between Palin and Joel's Army seem pretty tenuous to me. She's a pentecostal and so is Todd Bentley and Rodney Howard-Browne, but that doesn't mean much. My stepmother is pentecostal and she doesn't have anything to do with Joel's Army. And I think they're misusing the term "dominionist" here. Dominionists and pentecostals are entirely different groups theologically.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 1:52 PM
I wish people like Palin would face up to the fact that a truly "Bible-based" society would look a lot more like Taliban Afghanistan than suburban megachurch America.
That might seem true, but only to those who intentionally twist the Bible to bash it or those who are just plain ignorant.
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 2:00 PM
mroberts wrote:
Well it would certainly be true for a society based upon Old Testament laws, the kind that Rushdoony and his followers have in mind.
A big part of the problem as well is *how* Christians interpret the Bible and which parts of it they think we (and by extension, our laws) should emulate and emphasize. The Bible is, after all, a book rather like a large fortune cookie that people interpret according to their own biases. There are traditional Catholics out there who would see our society's laws return to those of the "golden" ages of Medieval life, when Catholic kings ruled by divine right and heretics were swiftly and summarily executed. There are Christians who envision the ideal society is akin to what Karl Marx envisioned, wherein people share everything and live communally a la what the new Church members did in Acts.
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 2:19 PM
There are traditional Catholics out there who would see our society's laws return to those of the "golden" ages of Medieval life, when Catholic kings ruled by divine right and heretics were swiftly and summarily executed. There are Christians who envision the ideal society is akin to what Karl Marx envisioned, wherein people share everything and live communally a la what the new Church members did in Acts.
There are all kinds of people of varying political and religious persuasions that believe all kinds of things. So what? The issue I am addressing is the Bible and the contention that Christians who follow it want to live in a Taliban-like society. Such assertions are not only completely false, they are just ignorant. Sure, there might be a few extreme people who want that, but the Christian faith does not support that kind of view. The guy obviously has no clue that Christians don't integrate much of the Old Testament law into their doctrine.
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 2:29 PM
I honestly don't know what kind of government style you could perceive as being endorsed in the New Testament. Jesus wasn't exactly a political leader. If you believe that the teachings of Paul, for example, should become law however...then yes, I can see it being quite Taliban-like.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 16, 2008 2:33 PM
I honestly don't know what kind of government style you could perceive as being endorsed in the New Testament. Jesus wasn't exactly a political leader. If you believe that the teachings of Paul, for example, should become law however...then yes, I can see it being quite Taliban-like.
There isn't a style of government "endorsed" in the New Testament.
If you believe that the teachings of Paul, for example, should become law however...then yes, I can see it being quite Taliban-like.
There isn't even a case to made that Paul would endorse a "Taliban-like" government. First of all, all comments Paul made that libs would characterize as anti-egalitarian are directed at the church, not the government. Secondly, there is a good case to be made that his directions in his letters were specific only to the churches he was writing because of specific problems within that church. Some people take a hard line on this and make sweeping statements that women cannot be leaders in churches at all. However, there are plenty of instances of women being in leadership roles in the early church, so I think there is more to it than what we get from the letters. Remember, the books Paul wrote are letters, and we have no idea what may have been said in other correspondence back and forth. We are getting a very limited snapshot of what was going on within the churches and his thinking on it. While Paul's views seem very anti-egalitarian in some places, they are very egalitarian in others. It wouldn't make sense that the same man would produce vastly different thinking on the same topic, so to me there appears to be more to the story here that we are not completely aware of.
Jesus himself is very egalitarian. In ancient Jewish society, men did not talk to women, and Jews did not mix with Samaritans. Jesus demolished both taboos and displayed that he views all as equal by interacting publicly with a Samaritan woman. Paul knew the teachings of Jesus well, so it would not make sense to me that he would see women as being inferior to men. To me, there is more to the story we don't know about.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 2:49 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 16, 2008 2:50 PM
mroberts wrote:
Mroberts, open your eyes. Some Christians *do* want very much to live in a Taliban-like society. I have read their own writings to this effect. Heck, St. John Chrysostom even thought women should walk around veiled. Burquas anyone? And haven't you ever heard of "theonomy" or the Chalcedon foundation?
The only ignorance here is in what you're claiming.
And the correct Jeopardy! answer is, "What is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy?"
But seriously, you are correct in that these people do represent the fringes of modern American Christendom, at least for now.... although they are definitely not "few" in number.
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 2:52 PM
Someone above said:
And mroberts responded:
So folks like RJ Rushdoony, Gary North, Andrew Sandlin and other prominent reconstructionist leaders...are they "just plain ignorant" or are they trying to "intentionally twist the Bible to bash it"? Because they all advocate a Bible-based society that could only be distinguished from the Taliban by not using Arabic words. And they claim that anyone who doesn't believe in such a society is twisting the Bible and ignoring the plain commands of God. Your dispute here is really with some of your fellow Christians, not with those of us who acknowledge their existence. The fact is that one can use the Bible to justify creating almost any kind of society. It just depends on which verses you wish to point to and what kind of interpretation you want to make of those verses.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 2:56 PM
Herod,
You could take that as an endorsement of governmental power, or you could also take it as an endorsement of anarchy-- there should be no government; but everyone is subject to God's authority. I've known Christians who have read the verse that way.
If you take it as an endorsement of whatever government happens to be in existence, then you will inevitably run into the problem of God having ordered you to obey a government who tells you to do things God has previously told you not to do. So you have a paradox.
So-- paradox, or anarchy?
Posted by: Gretchen | September 16, 2008 2:56 PM
Whichever style of government is in power is endorsed by the New Testament.
If that isn't overly simplistic, I don't know what is. Herod, there is no way that you could justify biblically that God would endorse a tyrannical government like that under Stalin where he killed people he didn't like. That is absurd. If rulers themselves are disobeying God's laws, Christians are not called to obey them. To say otherwise is unbiblical and just ridiculous.
A great classical work on this is by Junius Brutus and called "Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants". He lays out the biblical justification for rebellion against evil tyrants.
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 2:57 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 16, 2008 2:58 PM
So folks like RJ Rushdoony, Gary North, Andrew Sandlin and other prominent reconstructionist leaders...are they "just plain ignorant" or are they trying to "intentionally twist the Bible to bash it"? Because they all advocate a Bible-based society that could only be distinguished from the Taliban by not using Arabic words. And they claim that anyone who doesn't believe in such a society is twisting the Bible and ignoring the plain commands of God. Your dispute here is really with some of your fellow Christians, not with those of us who acknowledge their existence. The fact is that one can use the Bible to justify creating almost any kind of society. It just depends on which verses you wish to point to and what kind of interpretation you want to make of those verses.
Uh yes, Ed. I believe I said essentially the same thing when I said "There are all kinds of people of varying political and religious persuasions that believe all kinds of things. So what?". If there is somebody out there who claims to be a Christian and is advocating a tyrannical society that cuts off hands and stones people, they are not advocating it from the standpoint of true Christian doctrine. There is NO justification for such a society in Christianity. Just because somebody wants that and claims to be a Christian does not mean that what they are advocating is actually supported by Christian thought. There are extreme people in every group of people. There are people on the left that openly advocate the overthrow of the US government and the institution of a communist one. Are we going to say that all people on the left think like that?
Those that like to characterize Christians as Taliban are doing it because of two reasons in my experience: outright ignorance of Christian thought. Or, just for the sake of bashing Christianity because they hate it. Regardless, there is no basis for such thinking in actual Christian doctrine.
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 3:07 PM
Mroberts, open your eyes. Some Christians *do* want very much to live in a Taliban-like society. I have read their own writings to this effect. Heck, St. John Chrysostom even thought women should walk around veiled. Burquas anyone? And haven't you ever heard of "theonomy" or the Chalcedon foundation?
Adrienne, so what? What does that prove? Just because one person who claims to be a Christian says he wants a Taliban society doesn't mean what he is advocating is actually supported by Christian doctrine. People say all kinds of things about all kinds of things. It doesn't make it so!
Posted by: mroberts | September 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Well, you kind of have to admit, we'd be a lot better off without women's suffrage. The first thing they did after they got the vote was push through the prohibition, and it's been nothing but a long series of big-government bad ideas since then. Unfortunately, Pandora's box is open now, we're not going back, and there's no use complaining about it.
Posted by: Eric | September 16, 2008 3:14 PM
mroberts wrote:
So what is that they are 1) Good at cozying up to people with political power and influence, and those with money and 2) They make a point of trying to convert others to their point of view, on pain of hellfire, of course.
As Ed pointed out, your dispute here is with your fellow Christians, not with us. We are just trying very hard to keep the Rushdoonys et al from helping to shape public policy! Oh, and we like to make fun of them too.
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 3:17 PM
Yeah, Eric, those darn women and those darn coloreds, always trying to suck at Big Government's teat. Things would be so much better if they had never gotten the vote. Real conservatives say "No way!" to the Federal Government in all things. Heck, I bet you're such a good libertarian that you even like walking up to your local police officers and firefighters and spitting in their faces, don't you?
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 3:22 PM
Umm, I'm pretty sure Eric was kidding.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 16, 2008 3:27 PM
One can only hope, Gretchen!
Posted by: Adrienne | September 16, 2008 3:28 PM
Or one that commits genocide against, say, the Canaanites...oh, wait...nevermind...
Posted by: Tulse | September 16, 2008 3:46 PM
mroberts-
You didn't answer my question. Are all of those men ignorant or are they all really leftists trying to distort Christianity out of political convenience? You said that the only people who claim that a Bible-based society would be like the Taliban are in those two groups. Which one do all the Christians who advocate such a society fall into? Or were you perhaps oversimplifying?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 4:16 PM
It's always amusing when believers of any stripe try to explain the need for two testaments - two covenants, a "do over," and cherry pick whatever it is they like or dislike about both to prove whatever ridiculous myth they are trying to promote.
Oh, and mroberts isn't a True Scotsman. My Bible tells me to sell everything and give the money to the poor. Nah gonna doit, wouldn be prudent, naht at this time. After all, it's only a metty-for for something else, eh? Or is it the irrefutable word of god? I don't know. Do you?
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | September 16, 2008 4:17 PM
From the time they are young boys, the onslaught to effeminize, neuter, and rob males of their manhood begins in this culture and continues relentless upon them till the day they die. The agenda creates confusion in males regarding what exactly their role as men is.
Does anyone else find it curious that the fears of men being "neutered" seems to get more press than fears of "masculizing" women?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2008 4:23 PM
My opinion is that such a theocracy would indeed be Taliban like. We Baptists didn't fare to well under either Roman or Reformed theocracies. We were "re-baptized" until we drowned. Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist (for shame), I think. Does he actually believe that in a Reformed, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Westminster Confession theocracy that "Believer's Baptism" as an alternative to paedobaptism would be tolerated? The term "useful idiot" comes to mind.
Posted by: heddle | September 16, 2008 4:37 PM
mroberts:
The guy who wrote 2 Peter 3:16 equates Paul's letters with scripture:
Why are Paul's letters in the Bible, if they can be dismissed as being specific to a particular church and to their specific problems?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | September 16, 2008 5:41 PM
Re: While most religious righters have embraced Sarah Palin's candidacy as one of their own, the really hardcore nuts are saying that women should never be in a position of authority over men under any circumstances.
Look up Genesis 21:12 some time.
NRSV translation: "Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you."
How could there possibly be a clearer statement about the authority of women? (Of course, I make this point with a large portion of humour, but it really is in the Bible, and any women whose name happens to be Sarah and who has a mischievous personality is welcome to take advantage of it. I'd rather Palin didn't, but I mean any other Sarah.)
Posted by: Adrian Morgan | September 16, 2008 10:24 PM
Silverman?
Posted by: tincture | September 16, 2008 10:42 PM
This is AWESOME, Ed, thanks!!!
Do you feel neutered and robbed, Ed? Do ya? C'mon, do ya?
Posted by: Andrea | September 16, 2008 10:43 PM
Shorter mrroberts:
Everything in the ***BIBLE*** says exactly what I believe, and nothing else! Everyone who disagrees with me is a SINNER and is going to HELL!!!one!!!eleven!
Look up "No True Scotsman" before you respond... if you can.
Posted by: LanceR | September 16, 2008 10:56 PM
Just because it needed to be repeated. Thanks, coragyps.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 16, 2008 11:47 PM
Andrea-
Yes, I wish you women would stop voting so I could have my penis back.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 16, 2008 11:57 PM
Thanks Adrian Morgan. Made my day.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | September 17, 2008 5:16 AM
Damn those egalitarian elitists!
Posted by: Andrew | September 17, 2008 7:05 AM
Ed's right, Andrea. I mean, look at Ted Haggard, poor thing. He wasn't gay, it's just that he was so emasculated by female vote that masculine thoughts were hard to maintain.
But he wasn't gay. He was completely heterosexual.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 17, 2008 7:54 AM
mroberts disappeared again. I'm sure it's not because he has no argument that makes sense. It's prolly 'cuz he found out that Starbucks was putting pharoahmoans in the lattes so that all those fecund females and horny young men would drink one and sin against the LORD and then the wome will have to get abortions and the men will be so traumatized that they'll have to turn gay. Coffee, who knew, in the 1500's that the mooslims would use it as a weapon of terror?
Posted by: democommie | September 17, 2008 9:42 AM
Ed - All ya gotta do is propose an amendment and then get it passed. If you don't have the .. um ... balls to do it, that's not my fault.
Valhar - I'm sure that's one of the talking points in gay rescue camps, or whatever the hell they're called. If the wife had just been more of a WOMAN, dammit, then the man wouldn't have gotten used to a masculine partner and craved more. Something like that? I dunno.
Posted by: Andrea | September 17, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 17, 2008 12:05 PM
Herod the Freemason:
I think that mroberts meant Stephen Junius Brutus, a nom de plume used by a french huegenot. It got more confusing.
Posted by: democommie | September 17, 2008 4:13 PM
I'm curious about this, from an old Pharyngula thread.
"David Heddle wrote (in comment #61 of the International Women's Day thread):
I'm having fun [. . .] And what does your question have to do with my being a Calvinist?"
So, are you a Calvinist, heddle, or a baptist?
Posted by: democommie | September 17, 2008 8:59 PM
democommie: It is entirely possible to be both Calvinist and a Baptist simultaneously. About 10% of current Southern Baptists (my denomination) are Calvinist in orientation, as is Southern Theological Seminary. Historically, the number is much higher. Most other Baptist denominations also have a large number of Calviniss.
From reading his blog, I seem to remember that Dr. Heddle attended a Presbyterian church in New Hampshire. I do not know what church he now attends in Virginia.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 17, 2008 9:18 PM
Kehrsam:
Thanks, but I would like an answer from heddle. In reading back through the comments I see that presbyterians and calvinists are lumped together. I admit that to me it's not particularly important which christian fanstasy someone subscribes to, but I grew up Cath-O-Lick and there was really only one flavor, despite cultural and language differences.
Posted by: democommie | September 17, 2008 10:51 PM
demcommie,
kehrsam is correct.
I am in a "Reformed Baptist" church. There is a growing subset of Baptists churches that follow the "doctrines of grace" or Calvinism. It is true that such churches drop some of Calvin's teachings, especially (and obviously) infant baptism, so they deviate from Calvin on the sacrements. Reformed Presbyterian denominations (like the PC-PCA, not the larger, liberal PC-USA) are arguably more Calvinistic, but they they too will not agree with Calvin on all things--for example Calvin held to the Catholic doctrine of the perpetualy virginity of Mary.
Generally a church, of any or no denomination, will call itself Calvinistic if it affirms the so-called five points of Calvinism, i.e., the famous TULIP acrostic.
Posted by: heddle | September 18, 2008 4:36 AM
heddle - and the 'famous' TULIP acrostic is...? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2008 6:01 AM
Nevermind I found it. Love the first point! Sounds pretty rock 'n roll to me! -:D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2008 6:04 AM
DingoJack,
We are in rare agreement, the 'T' is the best. (And actually the other four follow, or had better follow, from it.)
Posted by: heddle | September 18, 2008 7:18 AM
heddle:
Well, that certainly doesn't decrease the confusion. It seems that calvinists are for dominionism, but you're not. Don't bother answering, it's not really a question.
I do have a question, one I've asked many times over the years. If all christians (excluding the papists, who as everyone knows are not REALLY christians) believe in the same GOD and the same bible; why do they gotta have so many different branches? It seems inefficient. That's not really a question either.
Posted by: democommie | September 18, 2008 7:54 AM
democommie,
No, "dominionists are Calvinists", does not imply "Calvinists are dominionists." It's that whole "not all animals are horses" thing.
Posted by: heddle | September 18, 2008 8:10 AM
I'm a Baptist and I know an entire click that will not vote for her. Now it is a small sample size but the woman in control thing is well, what it is.
Posted by: GH | September 18, 2008 10:33 AM
for those that are interested:
http://www.theopedia.com/TULIP
Posted by: GH | September 18, 2008 10:36 AM
For those that are interested.
http://www.theopedia.com/TULIP
Posted by: GH | September 18, 2008 10:39 AM
How dare you mock the precious son of the holiness!!! How dare you!!! He has given you so much. Your sins and wickedness can be forgiven by the precious blood of the lamb and eternity of bliss can be yours if only you submit to Him and his sanctified word of the Lamb. Give up your pride and selfishness. You are nothing compared to his precious Blood. EITHER YOU ACCEPT THE HOLINESS OR FACE ETERNAL DESTRUCTION AND THE MOST AGONIZING PAIN YOU CAN IMAGINE IN THE DEPTHS OF HELL WITH THE REBELLIOUS SATAN AND HIS ANGELS OF DARKNESS WHO DID NOT DO WHAT GOD WANTED ALL OF THE TIME. GOD WANTS YOUR WORSHIP 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME - ALL OF THE TIME AND IF HE DOESNT GET WHAT HE WANTS HE WILL TORTURE YOU. PRAISE HIS HOLY LAMB IN HEAVEN OUR FATHER AND HIS ETERNAL HOLINESS AND HALLEJUAH. BLESS HIS HEAVENLY TESTICLE OF PRECIOUSNESS.
Posted by: Holy Lamb of the Covenant | September 19, 2008 9:02 AM
...the precious son of the holiness
Odin? You mean Odin, right?
Posted by: Josh | September 19, 2008 9:20 AM
Nah Josh I think it means Horus..oh wait silly Dingo I thought it said "sun".
Dear Roast Lamb of Deliciousness - no wonder god is cross all the time, only ONE testicle. What do you reckon?, torsion or cancer? :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Maybe god went duck hunting with Dick Cheney ....DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 19, 2008 9:35 AM
torsion--definitely torsion.
Posted by: Josh | September 19, 2008 2:26 PM