Monday, September 05, 2011

The Newest Left Wing Conspiracy Theory

The grocery store shelves may have been cleaned off. Supplies of water may be running low. Batteries may be hard to find. No, it's not fear of hurricanes and floods: it's liberals in panic mode because they think the theocrats are coming.

Remember Hilary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Well, now there's a new conspiracy. Here is Terry Gross, host of NPR's "Fresh Air" waxing paranoidal:
An emerging Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and the return of Jesus is establishing a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role.

The international apostolic and prophetic movement was named the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, by its leading architect, C. Peter Wagner. My guest, Rachel Tabachnick, has been researching and writing about this movement. She says although the movement is larger than the network of apostles organized by Wagner, and not all those connected with the movement describe themselves as part of Wagner’s NAR, the apostles and prophets of the movement have an identifiable ideology that separates them from other evangelicals.
The occasion for all the alarm bells are two articles, one by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker, in which he dredges up a relatively obscure school of evangelical thought and somehow reads it into Michelle Bachman's campaign platform, and another by Michelle Goldberg at Newsweek, who extrapolates the Plot For A Theocratic Takeover Of The United States Government to include Texas Governor Rick Perry.

These writers purport to have discovered disturbing indications of the covert influence of something called "Dominionism," which in its weak form is simply the belief that Christians should take their values into the voting booth, and in its strong form is that, well, that you should take your religiously-based values into the voting booth--but that you should be up front about the fact that your doing it.

The strong form of Dominionism scares liberals. The weak form scares them even more because they can convince themselves that it's conspiratorial and  get themselves all worked up about it.

The general paranoid drift of these articles is that, lurking underneath the apparent mainstream evangelical beliefs of some Republican candidates is the plan to spring a theocracy on the voters once they are elected, thereby helping to bring about the Second Coming.

We may just be facing the prospect of hypersensitive liberals building bomb shelters and storing canned food and ammunition in order to ride out the coming takeover by apocalyptic evangelicals. There should be some special name for people who think we should all take shelter because other people think the end is near.

17 comments:

Singring said...

Aside from the double irony that someone who sees the 'gay agenda' lurking in every public swimming pool is lecturing 'liberal's on being paranoid about a political candidate who would like to have her House colleagues investigated to see if they are 'anti-American' (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT01mC9xSA), there's a serious question I have:

Why should I take seriously your claims that Dominionism isn't something to be concerned about? Just recently, you called people that deny the Holocaust, try to paint a rosy picture of slavery and would like to apply the Ten Commandments today as 'standard' or maybe 'a little goofy' thinkers. So if you think such thinking is 'goofy' at worst - then why should I take you seriously on anything you say about the ideology of others?

Personally, I'm not too concerned with Perry and Bachman's ridiculous Christian fundamentalism (and I don't think there's a 'plot') - I'm much more worried about their scientific, historic and economic ignorance and illiteracy. At least Jon Huntsman has the guts to stand for scientific integrity and sanity, even though I oppose his economic ideas.

Lee said...

Personally, I can't think of anything more ridiculous than a) believing ethics are relative and b) always arguing as if they are not.

Singring said...

'Personally, I can't think of anything more ridiculous than a) believing ethics are relative and b) always arguing as if they are not.'

When have I ever argued as if ethics are absolute? Could you perhaps give an example?

Do you consider denial of the Holocaust to be ethically good or right? If so, then on what absolute rule do you make that judgement, if not, why are you criticizing me for a position on ethics that we share?

Lee said...

> When have I ever argued as if ethics are absolute? Could you perhaps give an example?

You argue as if ethics are absolute every time you get on your moral high-horse, as if there is such a thing as a moral high-horse.

E.g., here, in this very thread.

If ethics are relative, then there is another perspective aside from your own in which painting a rosy picture of slavery is fine, the Ten Commandments should be applied as a standard, Christian fundamentalism is not ridiculous, and there is nothing wrong with scientific, historic, and economic ignorance and illiteracy.

So all you're really telling us is you like the things you like and don't like the things you don't like.

Singring said...

'You argue as if ethics are absolute every time you get on your moral high-horse, as if there is such a thing as a moral high-horse.'

Lee, like many times before, you are mistaking my right to a personal opinion - just the same as you or everyone else - with a claim that this opinion is founded on some sort of absolute rule or basis. I am perfectly justfied in believing that slavery is wrong for no better reason than because I just happen to think so - it does not equate to me claiming that this belief is founded on absolutist principles.

Maybe one day you will grasp this distinction and get your own handle on morality that doesn't involve checking everything you do against what the big guy in the sky tells you to do.

'So all you're really telling us is you like the things you like and don't like the things you don't like.'

I can give you rational arguments as to why I don't like the things I don't like based on some simple premises that I have outlined for you several times before. You are free to disagree with my premises, of course. However, why do you bring foward criticism on the foundation of my ethical judgements in this instance? Do you disagree with my ethical judgements in this case (leaving aside for a moment how I arrived at them)?

Do you like people painting a rosy picture of slavery and denying the Holocaust? Do you consider those positions ethical or are you more in line with Martin, who thinks they are just 'a bit goofy'?

You see, Lee, if we both dislike Holocaust deniers, then shouldn't we simply both decry Holocaust deniers, regardless on what basis either of us is doing so?

Think about that for a while and maybe you'll come a realization how societies around the world actally work.

Seamus said...

I am perfectly justfied in believing that slavery is wrong for no better reason than because I just happen to think so - it does not equate to me claiming that this belief is founded on absolutist principles.

That statement, if you truly believe it, means the death of any rational discussion of ethical questions. If the fact that you "just happen to think so" is the best reason you can give for your moral judgements, then you have absolutely no basis on which to persuade anyone else that those judgments are anything other than longer versions of "boo!" or "hooray!" And there's no reason why any of the rest of us should bother listening to you, unless we already agree with you and possess a herd mentality that makes us crave the knowledge that there are others who share our likes and dislikes.

Lee said...

> I am perfectly justfied in believing that slavery is wrong for no better reason than because I just happen to think so...

That statement was pretty much my point, I think. All it means is we stand advised regarding Singring's likes and dislikes, and little more... if, that is, Singring's claims of living in a morally-relative universe are correct.

If we were to take it seriously, it would require us to consult with Singring before coming down one way or the other on the arising moral issues of the day. Like the speed of light, it is always perceived as absolute when it reaches my ears.

Singring said...

'That statement, if you truly believe it, means the death of any rational discussion of ethical questions. If the fact that you "just happen to think so" is the best reason you can give for your moral judgements, then you have absolutely no basis on which to persuade anyone else that those judgments are anything other than longer versions of "boo!" or "hooray!" '

Seamus, read my entire post. I clearly state that my ethical judgements are derived from premises that we can discuss based on evidence and subjective preference if you so wish.

I merely was pointing out that even if I had no better reason to say that slavery was wrong simply because I felt that way, that would simply mean exactly that - that I don't like slavery simply because I don't. What it does not mean - and that is the point I was expressly trying to make - is that this means that I am basing my personal opinion on absolute standards, as Lee keeps asserting, thereby completely confusing two seperate issues - my right to hold any opinion I want and the question of the basis of these opinions.

On a final note (I presume you believe that morals are based on objective truths, i.e. objective rules) let me just ask you a simple question:

Why do you think it is right to follow objective moral rules, even if they existed? For example, why is it right to obey a hypothetical objective moral rule that states 'lying is wrong' (just an example).

Explain that to me.

Singring said...

'If we were to take it seriously, it would require us to consult with Singring before coming down one way or the other on the arising moral issues of the day.'

Really? How so. Please explain.

Singring said...

P.S.:

Lee, see my response to Seamus above as to why you are completely missing my point in that quote once again.

I don't reject slavery simply because, I base this ethical judgement on certain premises (as I mentioned above) and that I have illustrated at length for you in previous discussions (minimizing suffering, remember?) and I am very disappointed you now pretend this never happened. I thought we were getting to a point where we could have an honest debate.

Unfortunately, instead of thinking these issues through in a considered fashion, you revert to your old patterns of behaviour and (apparently intentionally) simply avoid the issue once again.

Singring said...

P.P.S:

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding might have arisen: I should have said 'I would be' where I said 'I am'.

Sorry, I thought that with me explicitly stating that I derive my morals from underlying premises you two would be able to figure out that I was speaking figuratively in the following paragraph to make a point.

I'll take the blame for that.

But I'd still like an answer to my question, Seamus.

Lee said...

>> 'If we were to take it seriously, it would require us to consult with Singring before coming down one way or the other on the arising moral issues of the day.'

> Really? How so. Please explain.

See below.

> Sorry, I thought that with me explicitly stating that I derive my morals from underlying premises you two would be able to figure out that I was speaking figuratively in the following paragraph to make a point.

It's all in there, starting with the fact that morals aren't something that exist, but something you derive.

If I don't know how on any given issue you derived your morality, how am I to know how to stop appearing ridiculous in your eyes?

Singring said...

'If I don't know how on any given issue you derived your morality, how am I to know how to stop appearing ridiculous in your eyes?'

Two points:

First, it is not how anyone derives their morals that makes them look ridiculous on a given discussion in morals, it is the actual morals they espouse that do, at least in the eyes of the other side of that discussion. I clearly stated what I thought about Holocaust denial and slavery apologism and instead of considering those points (which I hope aou agree with, though I sadly still haven't heard your position on either) you decided to attack me for how I derive my morality, something that has nothing to do with issue at hand if you agree with my moral judgement in this instance. So, Lee, do you agree that denial of the Hlocaust is a despicable thing to do? Do you believe that trivializing slavery is a horrible thing to do?

Second, it's odd you don't know how I derive my morality since we had a very extensive discussion on just that only a short while ago:

http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2011/07/becoming-as-rational-as-we-think-we-are.html

I guess I should take this as the final indication that either you don't care about what others say in discussions you have with them, or, if you do, you aren't able to remember it for more than a few days. Either way, it makes very little sense to continue a debate on the issue with somone who apparently can't process the other side of the argument.

And Lee - you derive your morals just as I do - only you choose to derive them from external rules you consider 'objective' or 'absolute', whereas I derive mine from a set of premises that are relative to me. We can have a discussion on which mode of derivation is more valid or more useful, but they are both derivations none the less.

Seamus said...

Why do you think it is right to follow objective moral rules, even if they existed? For example, why is it right to obey a hypothetical objective moral rule that states 'lying is wrong' (just an example).

Explain that to me.


Why is is right to do right? Hmm, let me think about that.

Lee said...

> And Lee - you derive your morals just as I do - only you choose to derive them from external rules you consider 'objective' or 'absolute', whereas I derive mine from a set of premises that are relative to me.

I'm only sure of only a few things, but one thing I am sure of is that whenever people derive their own moral values, we're in serious trouble. There is nothing human beings cannot justify themselves for doing. Nothing. The worst, most foul and despicable human beings in history, and there is quite a contest to find the worst of them, could always justify the things they did. Most of them saw themselves as the good guys.

And even the best of human beings have awful lapses. There are none who are righteous, no, not one. All of man's righteousness is as filty rags.

Singring said...

'Why is is right to do right? Hmm, let me think about that.'

You should, because you apparently have no answer.

Welcome to the moral subjectivism.

Singring said...

'The worst, most foul and despicable human beings in history, and there is quite a contest to find the worst of them, could always justify the things they did. '

So does your God, Lee. He even tries to justify eternal torture.