Thursday, September 04, 2008

Is Palin a Christian Reconstructionist

I've been reading Daily Kos stuff, which is, after all Daily Kos, and so they often aren't very good at distinguishing various strands of what has come to be known as the Religious Right. In their minds, Campus Crusade, and James Dobson, and ID, and Christian Reconstructionism all smush together, and that really weakens their case when they talk about this sort of thing. There may be bones to pick with all of them, but they are different entities.

However, this Christian Reconstructionist is praying for McCain to die so Palin can run the country. Wow. I have the suspicion that defending herself against the charge of right-wing Christian extremism will probably be the most critical challenge for candidate Palin.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Was Obama organizing black churches to make his political policies rule the day in Chicagoland back in his community organizer days evidence that he's a left-wing Christian extremist? Is his old membership at Wright's church (which he would have never pulled if the hidden camera footage had never been shown, and you know it) evidence of left-wing Christian extremism? You're so blind to your own ideology, Victor.

Anonymous said...

The Obama camapign has raised 10 million dollars since Palin's speech.
Looks like she's doing a lot to energize those who don't want to see her and McCain in the White House.

Anonymous said...

Anon:

Can you say, "The Two Wrongs Fallacy"?

Victor Reppert said...

I knew the Rev. Wright issue would come up. But Wright is not involved in a systematic attempt to replace the Constitution. And Obama has not endorsed Wright's programme. And I do have a problem with Obama's not making the break sooner.

Is there evidence that Palin endorses the Christian Reconstructionist programme? I'm not saying that she does. But these are people who want to scrap the constitution.

Also, she is apparently part of the Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the union. So much for patriotism.

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I made no "two wrongs fallacy." And, thanks for admitting Obama is "wrong."

Victor,

Don't play word games. Wright has said, and is involved in, plenty. Doesn’t matter if it’s not “labeled” what you “label” Palin. Anyway, can you prove that Palin is "involved in a systematic attempt to replace the constitution?" And OF COURSE Obama hasn't "endorsed" Wright's program! But for you to distance Obama from Wright shows that you think Wright is problematic! Now all you have to ask yourself is whether the "distancing" was a political move, or whether Wright never said anything like that THE 20 FRIGGIN YEARS Obama was a member there. You must ask yourself if you think Obama would have left had the footage never surfaced. That you would answer "yes" just shows your a "talking head" for the left. And, I never brought up "reconstructionist." So your points simply miss the boat. I said "left-wing Christian extremism." Apparently you think the one is fine and not the other. Mix politics with religion so long as you do it in a progressive, facist, social gospel kind of way, huh?

And on to your next point about the independence party. You're such a weasel. "Apparently." Sheesh! First off, assuming she WAS, she isn't NOW. So, it appears that she "hasn't endorsed their program" just like you said of Obama on Wright.

Next, it appears your facts may be off, see here.

Third, not all in that party want a split. So, belonging to the party is not necessary or sufficient to get you to the charge you lob at Palin.

Fourth, it is utterly hilarious you bring up her association with that party. Obama’s very long term associations with people such as convicted felon Tony Rezko, racist American haters such as Jeremiah Wright and Father Phlegar, domestic terrorist William Ayers, etc., are absent from your comments.

Fifth, Obama was with Wright 20 years. What of Palin and the AIP? "Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

Clark says that Palin left the party and became a Republican in 1996, when she first ran for mayor of Wasilla."

That's TWO years, Victor, 18 less than 20! And, there's zero evidence she was on the side of secessionists.

And it's not like liberal leftist fascists haven't brought up succession. What about what happened after Kerry lost?

What about these liberals?

The Washington Times picked up on this too.

That's your party. That's Obama's party. You libs are so angry and two-faced it's not even funny.

Mike Darus said...

How about if we stop the guilt by association garbage? I thought we learned this lesson with McCarthy! It is really ridiculous when the association is made with two or three relationships removed.
Example: Obama went to Wright's church; Wright read a book written by a guy who believed in Liberation Theology; look what Liberation Theology did in South America...

Other Example: Palin USED to go to a Pentacostal church. Some Pentecostals are Reconstructionist.

PLEEEESE! Let's all agree that guilt by Association is wrong-headed, unfair, and blatently deceptive. OK?

Anonymous said...

Mike, even if I am using guilt by association - I'm not - I'm just answering the libs on their own terms/ground. I'm just using their argument forms against them to demonstrate how weak and pathetic the only kinds of arguments they seem to be able to come up with are. We should all agree that there are valid kinds of ad-hominem arguments. Abusive ad-hominems may be poor, not the kind I'm using. I'll stop embrassing them by using indistinguishable arguments from their own and having them reject those arguments but not their own, when they stop making these pathetically bad arguments so favored by the left. But...what would they have left? So, I gues you'll be seeing more of the same from me, unless they stop arguing altogether, that is. :-D

Mike Darus said...

If abusive ad-hominum argument is invalid and deceptive, it can't be justified by saying the other side is doing it. If it is wrong, it is wrong. We can expose invalid arguments by other means than indulging in them ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

I never said ANY side was doing "abusive ad hominem." I suggest re-reading my comments.

Victor Reppert said...

I've sat in more churches that I can count listening to preachers express political views I disagreed with.

If you will have noticed I criticized the hard left for lumping right-wing religious groups together. No one seems to have noticed that. I said that perhaps Palin's biggest challenge might be to combat arguments that she might have been involved with, or endorsed, some Christian right-wing extremist groups and ideas. If there is a good debunk here, please, let's have it. Palin may become my vice-President, and even my President if something happens to McCain, so I would be delighted to be reassured.

For example, the Daily Kos article claims that she was part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when she was in high school, which was affiliated with that "dominionist" Campus Crusade. Of course that's ridiculous.

The trouble with the Wright-Obama connection is that Obama's career and work contradict what we should expect if he were really the kind of radical suggested by some of Wright's comments.

And not all of Wright's comments bother me; I believe in divine judgment on nations, I believe, like Elizabeth Anscombe, that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified, so this was something we could have received retribution for.

I would like to look at the evidence on this Christian Reconstructionism business, along with the question of what her views on the End Times are.

Maybe she is the conservative anti-pork crusader she is being portrayed as. That would be nice to know, especially if McCain is elected. She could be a good deal more than the Republicans bargained for. I find it hard to believe that the vetting process went the way it should have. Right now, she is a black box, or, a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.

Anonymous said...

Victor,

I don't think she needs to defend herself against trumped up charges. It's not _I_ who has to do any "debunking" here! Are you serious? That's like me writing a post called "Is Victor Reppert a Serial Killer" and then saying that YOU need to give me a "good debunk."

Most Christians believe in divine judgment on people and nations, Victor. the problem, and Wrights problem, is when you try to pin point some event as divine judgment. I believe, at best, we can only say that divine judgment was a possible reason. This isn't the Old Testament times. God isn't sending prophets to reveal God's thoughts and plans. And, human situations are complex. Causes of suffering ambiguous. The Bible lists many different causes and reasons for suffering. And without the epistemological grounding of prophets, apostles, or some other specific revelation, it's best to keep our mouth shut about "why" some specific event if suffering happened. So, it's not that Wright just mentioned that God judges people/nations, it's that he tried to claim what WAS THE CASE. Wright doesn't know.

Obama's work and career do not suggest what you think...messianic hopes for the left aside. I happen to think he's a radical. I happen to think the multifarious ties with disreputable characters quite telling. Even if that were not so, I wouldn't have thought you were that blind. There are many people in white supremacist groups that send out young white men off to college and graduate work. Get them into high places. None of these men are "what you'd expect" after finding out who they were affiliated with. Don't we hear things like that all the time: "I wouldn't have expected that from him." It would be self-defeating to act like a wide-eyed militant if your goal was to get your extremist ideas into a position of power. Look at the 9-11 terrorists. All the time living hear did they give any "red flags?" No. So your analysis is only skin deep.

And why are you trying to look into all her theological beliefs? Are you asking for the same from Obama? What is his view on the end times? What is his view on Jesus' lordship? You see, I could either show him to be a kook, or I could demonstrate that he's a liar about believing in God and Christianity. Just using that to get votes.

Victor, you're acting like a talking head for the left. Applying double standards. You're not thinking clear. You're acting paranoid. Going off like a mad man without probative evidence. You're going on fishing expeditions. You're mixing politics and religion. In fact, your end times comment is stolen from the New Atheists! It's an ignorant claim that SPECULATES what MIGHT happen IF someone were CONSISTENT, according to atheist understandings of what those beliefs entail, with a particular take on the end times.

Victor Reppert said...

Our best evidence for what Obama can be expected to do is the paper trail he has left in the Senate and in the Illinois State Senate before that. People in legislative jobs leave a gigantic paper trail. That's better evidence of what he could be expected to do in the Presidency than what his pastor said in some overheated rhetoric. Obama's record suggests very strongly that he is an incrementalist, not a radical. In fact some people on the hard left are having trouble supporting him because he doesn't go far enough. I don't see him advocating, for example, a single payer health care reform system that would replace the insurance companies with the federal government.

I've heard other "divine judgment" theories about 9/11, from people who blamed it on the gays.

There's a paper trail for Sarah Palin, too, but you have to go up to Alaska and get it. We got zero indication of what Palin is all about in her speech. There is a good deal of what I think might be potentially damaging stuff in Palin's background that people need to have a look at before they say she is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anonymous said...

Got ya Victor, Obamessiah.

Anonymous said...

And Victor, one more thing: I'd do some research before you make claims about "Obama's record."

See, _The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality _.

Victor Reppert said...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005

I put about as much trust in Obama Nation that I put in Daily Kos. I wouldn't take anything from either source without some serious checking.

By the way, where does Obama say he will raise taxes. I have heard him say over and over again that he will cut classes for the bottom 80%? But every speaker at the RNC said he was going to raise taxes, so it must be true.

Edward T. Babinski said...

VP candidate's "Third Wave Pentecostalism" declared heretical by other Christians, including fellow Pentecostal leaders of the Assembly of God (the "third wave" folks have practices and beliefs similar to those of the Branhamite sect of Pentecostalism, the Latter Rain sects, one former member of whom contributed his testimony to Leaving the Fold). To date, objections to this movement have emerged from other Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and even fellow Pentecostals who declare the movement to be unbiblical and/or heretical. Also, conservative churches that refuse to embrace the 'outpouring of the Spirit' are targets of much of the anger of the movement.

You can find more information on the Third Wave movement and additional links to the activities of Palin's churches in the following articles:

Sarah Palin's Churches and the Third Wave, Part One
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/0244/84583

Sarah Palin's Churches and the Third Wave, Part Two with embedded video:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602

The video is also posted at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM

Fascinating video and article above. How near or far do you feel to that franchise of Christianity?

And speaking of modern day miracles and madness, magical vanishing-penis madness erupts in Nigeria, which has a higher percentage of believers in God than any other nation.
"A mind membered: In search of the magical penis thieves" by Frank Bures
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/0082063

Ilíon said...

I've seen much leftist/secularist whinging about how dangerous -- and pervasive -- "Christian Reconstructionism" is.

But, what admittedly small bit of reading I've done of *actual* "Christian Reconstructionist" (as in contrast to what the leftists/secularists *claim* to be "Christian Reconstructionism" positions and goals), I really can't see where they're much different from you or me.

Ilíon said...

VR: "I knew the Rev. Wright issue would come up. But Wright is not involved in a systematic attempt to replace the Constitution. ..."

The leftists/secularists -- and who, after all, tend to be liars -- *claim* that the "Christian Reconstructionists" aim to subvert the Constitution.

But is this claim actually true? Even by a surface reading of the words?

Or, if one reads deeper, when leftists/secularists assert that someone -- me, for instance -- wants to "subvert the Constitution," at best what they're claiming is that I want to restore Constitutional government in the US. Which is to say, I want to roll-back their own subverting of the Constitution.


VR: "Is there evidence that Palin endorses the Christian Reconstructionist programme? I'm not saying that she does. But these are people who want to scrap the constitution."

If there were such actual evidence, the Kossites wouldn't have to be feverishly inventing it and you wouldn't have to be asking the question in quite this having-it-both-ways manner. Now would you?

And, once again, *who* is it who claims that "these are people who want to scrap the constitution" and where/what is the evidence for the claim?

Ilíon said...

VR: "By the way, where does Obama say he will raise taxes. I have heard him say over and over again that he will cut classes for the bottom 80%? But every speaker at the RNC said he was going to raise taxes, so it must be true."

Mr Reppert, you really do need to free your mind of the Democratic Party and its mindless (and generally false) brain-washing. Since at least 1968, the Democratic Party has not been been a healthy place for human minds.

The "bottom 80%" pay very little income taxes, as it is.

If a normal politician promises to cut taxes for the "bottom 80%" -- and does not also promise to cut spending -- then logically he intends to increase the deficit ... or raise taxes elsewhere.

But, perhaps the rules are different for a politician who can turn water to wine. Or at least whine.

Victor Reppert said...

"The bottom 80% pay very little taxes." Huh? I'm in the bottom 80% by a sizable margin and I pay plenty of taxes.

Obama says he will raise taxes on the higher income levels and close corporate income levels.

I suppose your reply will be that the increased tax burden on the top will trickle down. I think one of the things that makes me an ex-Republican is the fact that I just don't believe in trickle-down economics. I think Ross Perot got this one right: "Trickle down didn't trickle."

And how can Republicans complain about Democrat truthfulness when Palin and the campaign repeat that falsehood about the Bridge to Nowhere without batting an eyelash.

Ilíon said...

VR (misquoting me): ""The bottom 80% pay very little taxes." Huh? I'm in the bottom 80% by a sizable margin and I pay plenty of taxes."

If you're going to pretend to argue with what I've said to you, at least have the decency to dispute with what I actually wrote.

Victor Reppert said...

Well, you said the bottom 80% pay little *income* taxes. Well, I pay plenty of income taxes. I don't think my quotation error amounts to much of anything.

Ilíon said...

V.Reppert: "By the way, where does Obama say he will raise taxes. I have heard him say over and over again that he will cut classes for the bottom 80%? But every speaker at the RNC said he was going to raise taxes, so it must be true."

Ilíon: "Mr Reppert, you really do need to free your mind of the Democratic Party and its mindless (and generally false) brain-washing. Since at least 1968, the Democratic Party has not been been a healthy place for human minds.

The "bottom 80%" pay very little income taxes, as it is.

If a normal politician promises to cut taxes for the "bottom 80%" -- and does not also promise to cut spending -- then logically he intends to increase the deficit ... or raise taxes elsewhere.
"

V.Reppert: ""The bottom 80% pay very little taxes." Huh? I'm in the bottom 80% by a sizable margin and I pay plenty of taxes.

Obama says he will raise taxes on the higher income levels and close corporate income levels.
"

How quickly we've come full circle!

You start out by questioning whether Mr Obama has *ever* said he intends to raise taxes. You make a potentially misleading statement about an (apparent) promise to lower taxes. You *accuse* the Republicans at their convention of lying about his intentions with respect to raising taxes.

Then, a mere one post later, you say that Obama has said that he does intend to raise takes.


Perhaps it would be good for you (personally) to lay off the politics and stick to religion? Just a suggestion; I'm somewhat concerned here.

====
And, by the way, that this is all I've said about that post is not to be understood that this is all I *could* say about it. It's a time thing.

Ilíon said...

The Tax Foundation (a page from 2006): Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Jeff Jacoby (token "conservative" at the Boston Globe) on Obama's tax promises: Seeing through Obamanomics

Ilíon said...

I suspect that you, good socialist(s) that you are, will not even this, nonetheless -- WSJ (Laffer and Moore): New Evidence on Taxes and Income