Dominionists run for highest office in US

[J.H.Brightman]

Even Lisa Miller, the liberal activist-journalist who writes for Newsweek, the same liberal Lisa Miller that wrote that piece for Newsweek awhile back that claimed the Bible supports gay marriage ~~ this same Lisa Miller warns her fellow liberals of the political electorial stupidity of fear-mongering about the Evangelicals and their so-called "Dominionism."

Said Lisa Miller (August 18, 2011):

In her recent column, "'Dominionism' beliefs among conservative Christians overblown, "Lisa Miller writes, "Here we go again. The Republican primaries are six months away, and already news stories are raising fears on the left about 'crazy Christians.' One piece connects Gov. Rick Perry with a previously unknown Christian group called 'The New Apostolic Reformation,' whose main objective is to 'infiltrate government.' Another highlights whacko-sounding Christian influences on Michele Bachmann. A third cautions readers to be afraid, very afraid, of 'dominionists.'"

I would post a link, but cannot until I get 10 more posts. But the story is all over the web, just google "Lisa Miller Dominionism" and you'll pull up several listings.

 

[tonystewart1]

Religious hatred comes from all sides, while the Islamofascists have the major handle on it right now.

Freedom of speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, such as not being subject to state-supported, tax-supported school prayers.

All the rest of the discussion that does not fit within the above is inaccurate.

Quote me the article section or admendment that address that. The constituion protects you from the govt it does not protect us from each other. That is the job of state statutes passed by the cititzens of the states themselves.

You made the assertion, son, so you defend it.

Too many righties and lefties here make assertions then demand others to refute their nonsense with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

I am not aware of the assertion you refer to. I was resonding to you and the insane comment about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean no one can be offened, hurt, or even frightened. It mean the govt can not censor your speech.


Dont call me son. I have lived to long and worked to hard to be called son.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is no free speech. Posting here is evidence of that.

 

[tonystewart1]

There is no free speech. Posting here is evidence of that.

What do you mean? You can post anything you want and no one takes you to jail. We all may offend others or anger or frighten them but we can still say it. The govt can not stop us.

That is freedom of speech.

 

[del]

There is no free speech. Posting here is evidence of that.

we'll add free speech to the list of concepts you fail to grasp.

 

[Sky Dancer]

bye del.

 

[del]

bye del.

as if

 

[RadiomanATL]

There is no free speech. Posting here is evidence of that.

You really don't know what free speech is, do you?

But keep on playing the perpetual victim by whining that your free speech rights have been violated.

 

[tonystewart1]

There is no free speech. Posting here is evidence of that.

You really don't know what free speech is, do you?

But keep on playing the perpetual victim by whining that your free speech rights have been violated.

Hate crime
Hate crime
Hate crime

We have done it now. Its the pokey for us.

 

[BDBoop]

Good article.

If this kind of attack sounds familiar, it should. It is not just an argument but a style of argument. Critics of a public figure take a marginal association and turn it into a Gnostic insight -- an interpretive key that opens all doors. Barack Obama was once trained in a community organization that was associated with Saul Alinsky, whose organization was reportedly subject to communist influence. And we all know what that means. Or: Obama's father was a socialist, anti-colonial Luo tribesman, and, well, like father like son. Never mind that that there is no serious evidence of political philosophic influence of father on son.

Many have become unhinged by the interpretive power of a simple idea. In the case of Dominionism, paranoia is fed by a certain view of church-state relations -- a deep discomfort with any religious influence in politics: Even if most evangelicals are not plotting the reconstruction of Cromwell's Commonwealth, they nevertheless want to impose their sectarian views on secular institutions. It is a common argument among secular liberals that the application of any religiously informed moral reasoning in politics is a kind of soft theocracy. Dominionism is merely its local extension.

Tea Party Holy War - Page 2 - Michael Gerson - Townhall Conservative

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quote me the article section or admendment that address that. The constituion protects you from the govt it does not protect us from each other. That is the job of state statutes passed by the cititzens of the states themselves.

You made the assertion, son, so you defend it.

Too many righties and lefties here make assertions then demand others to refute their nonsense with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

I am not aware of the assertion you refer to. I was resonding to you and the insane comment about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean no one can be offened, hurt, or even frightened. It mean the govt can not censor your speech.

Dont call me son. I have lived to long and worked to hard to be called son.

Your comment is out of touch with reality. The government certainly can, and certainly has, limited freedom of speech at times in American history.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You made the assertion, son, so you defend it.

Too many righties and lefties here make assertions then demand others to refute their nonsense with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

I am not aware of the assertion you refer to. I was resonding to you and the insane comment about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean no one can be offened, hurt, or even frightened. It mean the govt can not censor your speech.

Dont call me son. I have lived to long and worked to hard to be called son.

Your comment is out of touch with reality. The government certainly can, and certainly has, limited freedom of speech at times in American history.

I remember the enormous amount of space that anti-Bush protestors had to maintain. The Bush administration pushed them so far away no one could see them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not aware of the assertion you refer to. I was resonding to you and the insane comment about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean no one can be offened, hurt, or even frightened. It mean the govt can not censor your speech.

Dont call me son. I have lived to long and worked to hard to be called son.

Your comment is out of touch with reality. The government certainly can, and certainly has, limited freedom of speech at times in American history.

I remember the enormous amount of space that anti-Bush protestors had to maintain. The Bush administration pushed them so far away no one could see them.

Obama does so much better, he drives away anyone who might see someone protesting.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Your comment is out of touch with reality. The government certainly can, and certainly has, limited freedom of speech at times in American history.

I remember the enormous amount of space that anti-Bush protestors had to maintain. The Bush administration pushed them so far away no one could see them.

Obama does so much better, he drives away anyone who might see someone protesting.

Bush did the same thing.

 

[tonystewart1]

You made the assertion, son, so you defend it.

Too many righties and lefties here make assertions then demand others to refute their nonsense with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

I am not aware of the assertion you refer to. I was resonding to you and the insane comment about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean no one can be offened, hurt, or even frightened. It mean the govt can not censor your speech.

Dont call me son. I have lived to long and worked to hard to be called son.

Your comment is out of touch with reality. The government certainly can, and certainly has, limited freedom of speech at times in American history.

When?