Originally Posted by historybuff

But what danger do you think it poses? How, with the checks and balances that exist in our system, will this effect our country? You keep saying "dangerous." What is the danger?

So far, all I'm getting from your hysterical posts is that you don't like evangelicals. Yet can't clearly state why, other than they are "creepy."

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Despite occasionally similar language, nobody could realistically call any of these men (Lincoln, FDR, or JFK) Dominionists.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Dominion Theology:

Dominion Theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Since Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were all quite strongly secular in their political orientations, despite what may have been sincere personal religious beliefs, clearly they were not Dominionists. Some extremists of the Religious Right are Dominionists, and there are some indications that President Bush may be. If so, he is the first Dominionist president we have ever had, and I must say the results are, perhaps predictably, lamentable.

I'm not prepared at this point to stick that label on Palin. She does belong to a Dominionist Church, but as already pointed out, we can no more assume from that the extent to which she agrees with the pastor's extremist views than we can make the parallel assumption about Obama and Rev. Wright. It does, however, raise questions.

There's no point in making superficial comparisons with language used by previous good leaders to try to claim that Dominionism wouldn't be dangerous if it gained power. The comparisons ARE superficial, and should be dismissed.

As for the "checks and balances" that allegedly might have stopped Bush, there's only one that mattered, and that's the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House suffered an acute case of collapse of the spine in the wake of 9/11 and did not do their job. I have never been so angry with the Democratic Party as a whole, as I was in 2003 when they could have kept us out of Iraq and failed to do so. Does this mean that Bush is not solely to blame for the fiasco? You bet it does. But that does not in turn mean that having a Dominionist in the White House isn't dangerous. In fact, it makes it more dangerous, because sometimes the checks and balances don't work.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Here's what I'm saying:

All objective evidence (her church, pastors, what she herself has said, etc...) points to a particular religious perspective.

Based on my own experience with fanatics, their behavior can lead to dangerous consequences.

If I need to hold your hand further through this, I would consider that disengenuous.

Smoke=fire.

2+2=4

Figure. It. Out. Otherwise, it's not my job.

I don't need a specific example, but all of the classic tipoffs are there.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Those checks and balances did not stop GWB from fabricating evidence against iraq, invading Iraq, torturing people, interfering with science, etc.. .

The primary danger with Palin of course is that McCain dies in office and she uses her religious beliefs to steer America towards an evangelical/dominionist world view.



Isn't it obvious why? They mix religion with politics, they believe in the end-times and americas role in bringing those events about, they believe in mans god given ownership and dominion over the earth, they abuse children by brainwashing them with literalist views of creation, etc.... the list is very long.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Imperator

wow, so her relgioyus perspective overides her logic or law, and the evidence to back this up please?






...yea whatever.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I'll offer an example of a worst case scenario of what she could do as both VP or POTUS. She could go after Iran by lying to the american people about the danger iran actually poses in order to pursue her faith based agenda of america's role in the end times. There is already a very recent precedence of a president and VP engaging in this sort of behavior, so its not absurd to consider it. Im not claiming GWB and Cheney are end-timers, but they lied to go to war for a neoconservative agenda. She could likewise lie for war to achieve her own twisted agenda.

McCain is a hawk on Iran (of a secular nature), and Palin could be used to garner support in the religious right for any adventures he might have planned in that region.

Another example: She could use her position to avoid tackling the enormous environmental problems the world faces because her theology of dominion necessarily places human wants and desires above that of the environment and other animals. Dominionism offers an extreme anthropocentric view of our place in the cosmos.

There are plenty more examples in the realm of abortion rights, stem cell research, creationism. She might not be able to ever pass laws on these issues, but she could waste at least 4 years giving respect to them as important issues.

There are plenty of books and internet sources on this topic. I don't really need to hold you hand if you want to learn about it. I'm sure you can read about it and figure it out for yourself. Your apparent ignorance on the subject seems more feigned than genuine anyway.

Andrew

Originally Posted by phungus

She's the next Bush.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

If that's the case, this country is effed.