John Boehner: Ted Cruz is Lucifer

[_moksha]

MOKSHA: Don't ever do that again.

I didn't even notice the boobs. Seemed like a regular male demon torso to me. Are we sure Baphomet wasn't just lifting weights or perhaps eating some of that genetically altered food from Monsanto? Sorry to any and all who saw naughty boobs. The folks at work may be understanding about those goat-headed demons with an inverted pentagram, but not boobs on that same demon! Demon boobs and classical Greek art are just ...well ...forbidden. I need to train myself from now on not to just look at the symbol, but scope out the boobs as well.

[_EAllusion]

I'm a mod and I didn't know that post was against the rules. Are we forbidden from posting a pic of Michelangelo's David as well?

[_Gunnar]

Cruz isn't a Reconstructionist or closely allied with them. Michelle Bachmann is/was. He is a Dominionist and is closely allied with him though. If you're curious about the difference, you can tell Reconstrucitonists apart from a desire to make Levitical law the law of the land and continuous implied references to the transcendental argument for God in their justification of their beliefs.

Cruz is just hangin' with the theocrats like the 7 Mountains movement.

The author of the article quoted doesn't understand what Christian Reconstructionism is and takes it as synonymous with radical theocracy. It is something more particular than that. Christian Deconstructionism is just one type of Dominionism.

I read both the Wikipedia article and the one I quoted above (plus several others), and I didn't get the impression that they were in essential disagreement with each other about what Christian Reconstructionism is or that the latter regarded them as exactly synonymous (though they certainly have at least some things in common, it appears to me). Ted Cruz may not be closely allied with Christian Reconstructionists, but he does seem to be sympathetic to at least some of their views. At any rate, that he is a Dominionist is already bad enough!

[_EAllusion]

Cruz isn't a Reconstructionist or closely allied with them. Michelle Bachmann is/was. He is a Dominionist and is closely allied with him though. If you're curious about the difference, you can tell Reconstrucitonists apart from a desire to make Levitical law the law of the land and continuous implied references to the transcendental argument for God in their justification of their beliefs.

Cruz is just hangin' with the theocrats like the 7 Mountains movement.

The author of the article quoted doesn't understand what Christian Reconstructionism is and takes it as synonymous with radical theocracy. It is something more particular than that. Christian Deconstructionism is just one type of Dominionism.

I read both the Wikipedia article and the one I quoted above (plus several others), and I didn't get the impression that they were in essential disagreement with each other about what Christian Reconstructionism is or that the latter regarded them as exactly synonymous (though they certainly have at least some things in common, it appears to me). Ted Cruz may not be closely allied with Christian Reconstructionists, but he does seem to be sympathetic to at least some of their views. At any rate, that he is a Dominionist is already bad enough!

Christian Reconstructionism is particular thing, though. It's requires a belief that Mosaic law be the law of the land (i.e. thenomy) and relies heavily on transcendental apologetics. The latter in turn infuses their rhetoric at every turn. Bachmann isn't a reconstructionist. But she studied at Oral Roberts under a reconstructionist law professor, and this was quite influential on her. The theory and language of reconstructionism appears over and over in her communication. It's why, for example, she namechecks Understanding the Times by David Noebel a lot. Reconstructionists tend to love paleolibertarian, Austrian economics, and that's why she also speaks glowingly of Luvig Von Mises.

This isn't true of Cruz. He is, however, influenced by Dominionist thought and is closely associated with them. Dominionists believe that their brand of conservative Christianity (and therefore Christian leaders) should have dominion over all significant aspects of society, including the government (but also media, business, family, etc.) They don't necessarily believe that Old Testament law should be the law of the land, though. Nor are they necessarily influenced by transcendental apologetics.

This distinction is not minor. Reconstructionsist are the American version of ISIS. And that is not an exaggeration. The only significant difference is they are not revolutionary and prefer to use the wheels of democracy to take over the political system. But if they got their way, it's theocracy through the lens of iron age barbarism again. They favor capital punishment for unruly children, gays, apostates etc. They want to bring back slavery, stonings, and so on. Dominionists like those Cruz is in bed with would result in a government not unlike that of Iran's - a more modern theocracy with some parallel secular institutions subservient to it. There is a huge difference between ISIS and Iran and the same holds true of the Reconstructionist subculture of Dominionists and Dominionists generally.

[_EAllusion]

The article, for what it is worth, seems to take Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and Christian theocracy as just 3 different labels for the same thing. They're not.

[_EAllusion]

One of the interesting things on the right these days is a hysterical fear of Sharia law being imposed on the United States. This even includes omnimous warnings that it's already happening. It led to a wave of anti-Sharia legislation from Republican lawmakers over the past few years that I'm sure everyone is aware of.

Of course, this is bizarre. Muslims make up about 1% of the population and are a highly maligned group in the country at that. They hold almost zero significant public offices. In fact, open non-Christians hold very little political sway in the U.S. The idea that Muslims are going to impose Islamic theocratic law on the United States at any moment is ludicrous. It is reminiscent of early 19th century anti-semetic rhetoric involving a conspiracy of Jews to rule, and rob, the world.

However, there is a group of people out there who do have significant political power who have been working tirelessly to impose their religious rules and practices on our secular institutions. Instead of Sharia and Allah they prefer to use words like Biblical and God. Cruz is clear-cut representative of them. The contrast between hysteria over Sharia and actual fundamentalist Christian attempts to impose their religion on our public institutions is by turns humorous and frustrating. Especially when you consider it is often the same people who believe in both.

[_Gunnar]

EA, essentially the only disagreement I have with your last few posts is with your perception that I substantially disagree with your views on this topic. And I am not fully convinced that the article is really claiming that Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and Christian theocracy are just 3 different labels for the same thing. I think that, at most, it claims that they have things in common and are not entirely unrelated. I don't find that to be an unreasonable claim. As for the rest of what you wrote, I found what you said to be quite rational and well thought out, and no point on which really conflicts with my own understanding of the issues. My bad, perhaps, for not stating my own view clearly enough.

[_Brackite]

I believe that Ted Cruz is a big reason why the GOP Congress has been the most obstructionist legislative branch since Reconstruction over the last four years.