Stenographer snaps, rants on House Floor (a religious deconstruction/assessment of the story)

reply to post by adjensen


I figured you'd discredit Huffington. But it's only ONE of many sources I've looked at.

I encourage you to listen to the interview with Chris Hedges that windword posted above.

"Most Americans are unprepared to deal with what has really hit us" - they've been burrowing into government for 20 years....and they are "a deadly force."

He also said, "They may fail this time, but they will be back." And called it 'frightening'.

I hope folks will be willing to recognize this, and realize it IS HAPPENING, NOW!! It had EVERYTHING to do with the shut-down....

The author of the book "American Fascists" and others is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

reply to post by adjensen

There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America.

Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country.

Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed.

This ^^ is from windword's first link.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz—whose father is Rafael Cruz, a rabid right-wing Christian preacher and the director of the Purifying Fire International ministry—and legions of the senator’s wealthy supporters, some of whom orchestrated the shutdown, are rooted in a radical Christian ideology known as Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism.

This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.”

The full implications of a Tea Party constitution are well stated by RACHEL TABACHNICK when asked during an interview with Terry Gross on NPR what authority dominionists want in government.

They want the authority to align government with what they believe is the kingdom of God, with biblical values in their interpretation.

Let me back up and say something about dominionism. Dominionism is very different than having strong beliefs or even having very strong beliefs about one’s Evangelical values. Dominionism is very controversial inside of the conservative and Evangelical world. It’s a specific theology that states that somehow God lost control of the Earth when Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden and that humans must help God regain control of the Earth. And the way that they do this is by taking dominion over society and government.

This ^^ is from her second link.

They aren't messing around, adj. They're deadly serious. And they AREN'T GOING AWAY any time soon.

(Hug Oscar for me - I had to bury my beloved elderly kitty last week - I miss him.)

wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

I figured you'd discredit Huffington.

But it's only ONE of many sources I've looked at.

But they're all liberal, that's my point. TruthOut.org and NutsAndDolts are liberal sources who one would expect to blow the issue out of proportion.

I cited an academic source who studies these groups, and her conclusion is that they are inconsequential. Unless you can find an unbiased source that says that they are not, that they are truly a threat to democracy, all you're doing is falling back on left wing propaganda that is intended to scare people.

I encourage you to listen to the interview with Chris Hedges that windword posted above.

Unfortunately, I can't watch videos during the day, but I will, once again, point out that the source, Chris Hedges, is not unbiased on the issue -- he's a liberal journalist and former Ralph Nader speech writer.

Very sorry for the loss of your cat, I don't know what I'd do without Mr. Oscars

reply to post by adjensen

But they're all liberal, that's my point.

Okay, so, can you provide "conservative" sources to counterpoint those outlets?

Seems to me they (the "Dominionists") have quite a bit of clout.

reply to post by adjensen

Christian conservatives in America are not more militant than ever. Pat Robertson, a Christian minister, ran for president in 1988. Robertson was, actually, a dominionist. “There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world,” he wrote.

Religious fervor waxes and wanes depending on the political climate. Election season mobilizes all interest groups. That includes Christian conservatives, who “thrive in a mindset of persecution,” says professor Worthen. The more their opponents paint them as freaky and dangerous, the more they see themselves as political activists on behalf of God.

This is from your sourced article.

They are REAL, and they are HERE...and working to establish a Christian-only nation.

Did you listen to the interview? (okay, you can't during the day, but I hope you do - with an open mind - you might think this guy is a "liberal" - and I don't disagree - but his points are significant)

ETA: Do you dismiss EVERYTHING that comes from so-called "Liberal" sources?
I don't think that's fair.

Thanks for your thoughts about Lyle. He was a great cat: probably the "nicest cat ever".

reply to post by wildtimes

This is from your sourced article.

They are REAL, and they are HERE...and working to establish a Christian-only nation.

As usual, I'm not effectively communicating my point, sorry.

I never denied that they exist, or that they are not trying to achieve their ends, my point is that they are inconsequential, because they are so fringe and so few in number that they'll never amount to anything. With that in mind, they are little more than a bogeyman, puffed up by elements on the Left who want you to rally around them in opposition to these "crazy Christian jihadists."

Did you listen to the interview?

No, as I said, I can't watch videos during the day.

ETA: Do you dismiss EVERYTHING that comes from so-called "Liberal" sources? I don't think that's fair.

No, of course not -- I cite liberal sources about as often as I cite conservative ones, because I'm a centrist, not particularly conservative or liberal. But I recognize that, on certain subjects, some sources are just unreliable, because of political bias, and this instance is one where there seems to be a general consensus that the only people who think these "Dominionists" are any sort of concern are those on the far left, so I don't consider them to be a credible source on this issue.

By and large, I prefer academic sources over popular media or blogs, and the only one of those cited in this thread, by me, indicated that the odds of a Christian theocracy being established through these people is effectively zero.

Thanks for your thoughts about Lyle. He was a great cat: probably the "nicest cat ever".

Our last cat passed earlier this year, and over my daughter's frequent protests, I'm probably done with cats, my lungs just can't deal with all that errant fur. I have always enjoyed having them around, though, they're mostly great pets.

reply to post by adjensen

By and large, I prefer academic sources over popular media or blogs, and the only one of those cited in this thread, by me, indicated that the odds of a Christian theocracy being established through these people is effectively zero.

Well, I certainly and definitely hope you are right, and that I'm being alarmist.

(And although I agree with your daughter, It's YOUR house and life, my friend!)

wildtimes
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

THANKS to 12m8 for allowing me to have the thread in this forum. :go mods:

I want to discuss with the frequent flyers here, about this woman's melt-down on the House floor.
It smacks of the New Apostolic Reformation/7-Mountain-Dominionists (of which Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and others are active participants).

THEY WANT TO MAKE THE USA a THEOCRACY based on Evangelical Christianity. It scares the bejeebers out of me. They are the equivalent of "the Taliban", but haven't gotten to where they're shooting people in the head yet.

What do you guys think about this lady?

Me? I think she's nuts (and so are those others in Congress who are 7MDs).

edit on 10/17/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

I never heard of 7 Mountain Dominionists before, but thankfully I was able to figure it out. Did you know that the Vatican is only on one hill, and not all seven? And did you know also that Istanbul was also built on seven hills? Istanbul, that's where the Ottoman Empire was at, wasn't it?

Oh yes, Suleiman the Magnificent reigned from Constantinople, which is now Istanbul. He was the tenth Ottoman ruler, from the city of seven hills. But here, take your pick about cities built on seven hills....

Cities Built on Seven Hills

And the woman didn't also talk about God, she ranted about the Constitution. What is this country coming to when people can't defend the Constitution either? And we don't know her religious affiliation, but I think people should also be concerned enough that Muslims were shouting down the voting for naming Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. No one escorted them out during the Democratic National Convention.

I don't think she was nuts, just very emotional. At least she didn't lead them in a chase down the street.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Yeah, no chase down the street.
But the fact that police interviewed her, and then decided to transport her to a hospital for an evaluation, tells me that her behavior didn't just "turn off" after she got into the hallway.

A sane person, even if they wanted to make the point to the extent that she did, would not say, "Don't touch me"....
and would, once having been escorted outside, been calm and reasonable.

I just don't believe this woman was in her rational mind. But, of course, I am very possibly wrong. (Story of my life )

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Yeah, no chase down the street.
But the fact that police interviewed her, and then decided to transport her to a hospital for an evaluation, tells me that her behavior didn't just "turn off" after she got into the hallway.

A sane person, even if they wanted to make the point to the extent that she did, would not say, "Don't touch me"....
and would, once having been escorted outside, been calm and reasonable.

I just don't believe this woman was in her rational mind. But, of course, I am very possibly wrong. (Story of my life

)

Well who can be rational all the time when someone sees something happening that impacts them deeply?

But the other night I did see a woman in my building who flipped out and had to be taken to the hospital. She fought two policemen, three firemen, and two paramedics before they got her on the gurney and then after they had her strapped down, she broke the gurney straps, all the while screaming "get the *blank* off me". She weighs maybe 100 pounds.

The woman was protesting what she felt was not right. Nuts, I don't think so. Emotional, very much so. But what's nuts is sitting back and saying nothing knowing you could say something. But I think this will bring it out into the public where we will no longer have the right to assemble peacefully anywhere. ATS is probably the last bastian of free speech and protest and ATS isn't really making that big of a difference either.

At least ATS allows us all to comment on either side of the issue.

reply to post by WarminIndy

But what's nuts is sitting back and saying nothing knowing you could say something.

AMEN!!! That's my life: speaking up (often inappropriately) in meetings. I don't fault her that, not at all.

But to be dragged out saying 'don't touch me' and subsequently interacting with the Capitol Police to the extent that they decided she should be evaluated????

No, I've never gone that far. Am I opinionated and outspoken/confrontational? Yes.
Crazy? No.

I speak my mind, but I also know the boundaries. Although I've considered from time to time how I'd like to "pitch a fit" like she did, just to see if they would send me to a hospital where I could just REST for awhile,

I HAVEN'T DONE IT.

The lady's cheese slid off her cracker.

Well, if it's any help, I did a little snooping and found the woman's Facebook page -- in favour of your theory, she's a Pentecostal; in opposition, she's a fan of Ed Dobson, who is a fairly liberal pastor.

In favour of her being a little goofy is a statement that she made, saying that the Holy Spirit had been waking her up for a week, prepping her to make this little speech.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, THANKS, adj!!!

That's much appreciated.

In favour of her being a little goofy is a statement that she made, saying that the Holy Spirit had been waking her up for a week, prepping her to make this little speech.

Mmm-HM!! And given that Bill Young was whispering in her ear right before she got up to approach the dais...
well....
erm....
*clears throat*

LOL

* clears throat again*
I know, I'm being irreverent...but, still.....we're not children or newbies on the planet.

I know you'll get what I mean.

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

But what's nuts is sitting back and saying nothing knowing you could say something.

AMEN!!! That's my life: speaking up (often inappropriately) in meetings. I don't fault her that, not at all.

But to be dragged out saying 'don't touch me' and subsequently interacting with the Capitol Police to the extent that they decided she should be evaluated????

No, I've never gone that far. Am I opinionated and outspoken/confrontational? Yes.
Crazy? No.

I speak my mind, but I also know the boundaries. Although I've considered from time to time how I'd like to "pitch a fit" like she did, just to see if they would send me to a hospital where I could just REST for awhile,

I HAVEN'T DONE IT.

The lady's cheese slid off her cracker.

I would look at it this way, she was not at the proper place for the right of assembly, but she did have the right as a citizen to use her Freedom of Speech, perhaps some people would choose rather to do it outside the building. But what this tells me is this, they could not arrest her for using her Freedom of Speech, after all the House of Representatives and Congress do belong to the people, and she has a right according to the Declaration of Independence to have a redress of grievances. Given the place, legally they could not arrest her so the next thing to do is have her declared mentally unbalanced and question her sanity.

There are two issues here, one is legal, did she legally have a right to say what she did where she said it at? She did not have a permit to protest, but legally she has Freedom of Speech. So by them doing this in the very place owned by the people in the first place, then legally they would violate her Constitutional rights. So, make an example of her and call her nuts before other people learn that they also have the same rights as she does, and that the government belongs to us, the people. Many people have forgotten that one. In fact, because all branches of the government belongs to the people, we have the right to attend and take pictures and videos, and every senator and congressmen are public servants. Even the president is a public servant and cannot tell the American citizens where they can take his picture because we own the government. People forgot that.

The second issue is this, what is going to happen now? They are making an example of her to tell people "look what happens if you protest the government, we are going to call you insane". That then leads to taking away our rights as citizens and puts us in a police state.

Why do we need a license to protest? The state decides what you can and can't do, therefore, if the state dictates what you need a license for, then we are a police state. We need a license to get married, but we don't need a license to cohabitate. We need a license to drive a car, but then we are forced to have insurance.It doesn't make better drivers, in fact people are worse drivers because the insurance will pay for it if they have an accident. But why are we forced to have car insurance? Because this is a police state. Why must we wear seatbelts? Because it is the law. OK child car seats are a good idea, that one is decent. But so far here, we don't need a license to have children, like some other countries have done.

The first issue is legality and the second issue is where does it lead to?

reply to post by WarminIndy

The first issue is legality and the second issue is where does it lead to?

I understand what you're saying.

It was not ILLEGAL for her to do what she did. It was however, seemingly inappropriate for the venue and circumstances.

If she'd been escorted out and said, "You know what? I'm done. Sorry, I just had to say it. I'm fine, really. Yeah, I got carried away in the moment. Thanks for protecting the House." Along with a ....

then I'd be fine with it.

Where does it lead to?? Allowing this sort of behavior in civil circumstances leads to disruption of society.

There are 'parameters' set in place. If one crosses the line of "civil" behavior, then, they are dealt with. It's just the way it is.

wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, THANKS, adj!!!

That's much appreciated.

In favour of her being a little goofy is a statement that she made, saying that the Holy Spirit had been waking her up for a week, prepping her to make this little speech.

Mmm-HM!! And given that Bill Young was whispering in her ear right before she got up to approach the dais...
well....
erm....
*clears throat*

LOL

* clears throat again*
I know, I'm being irreverent...but, still.....we're not children or newbies on the planet.

I know you'll get what I mean.

edit on 10/18/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

If you think she was religiously mentally unbalanced, then you should read George Fox, founder of the Quakers. Being in a religion does not make you mentally insane, it's what you do in that religion that matters. I think Joseph Smith was off his rocker, but the Mormons would heartily disagree with me.

If an atheist got up and shouted about the Constitution, would he be considered mentally unbalanced also?

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The first issue is legality and the second issue is where does it lead to?

I understand what you're saying.

It was not ILLEGAL for her to do what she did. It was however, seemingly inappropriate for the venue and circumstances.

If she'd been escorted out and said, "You know what? I'm done. Sorry, I just had to say it. I'm fine, really. Yeah, I got carried away in the moment. Thanks for protecting the House." Along with a

....

then I'd be fine with it.

Where does it lead to?? Allowing this sort of behavior in civil circumstances leads to disruption of society.

There are 'parameters' set in place. If one crosses the line of "civil" behavior, then, they are dealt with. It's just the way it is.

It was probably the most inappropriate place, I do agree. But then again, didn't Kruzchev bang the podium of the United Nations with his shoe declaring that the USSR was going to demolish America? There seems to be some people who can get by with it but not so much for others. At least George Bush didn't demand that one guy be executed for throwing the shoe at him.

I suppose then it depends on who you are, where you are and what your affiliation is that matters.

reply to post by WarminIndy

If you think she was religiously mentally unbalanced, then you should read George Fox, founder of the Quakers.

I have. He was one of my ancestors' contemporaries.

WarminIndy
If an atheist got up and shouted about the Constitution, would he be considered mentally unbalanced also?

Well, if he claimed that the ghost of Charles Darwin prompted him to do it, I'd kinda wonder.