Latest Article Get our latest posts by subscribing this site

Mempolitikkan Agama

Politik agama sama-sama menguntungkan yang menyerang dan yang diserang dan sama-sama merugi juga. Politik agama bisa dimulai dari korban yang memancing serangan, agar dapat diuntungkan. Atau dimulai dari penyerang untuk merugikan korban. Cara yang pertama yang sulit dilihat. Semua Negara, Ideologi dan Parpol Mempolitikkan Agama... Baca Di Sini

Dominionisme dan Politik Agama di AS

Jumat, 20 September 2013

The term "dominionism" is used different ways by different people. When new terms are developed, that is to be expected. If we are to use words and phrases to discuss ideas, however, it pays to be on the same page concerning how we define those terms. This is especially true in public debates.

In her 1989 book Spiritual Warfare, sociologist Sara Diamond discussed how dominionism as an ideological tendency in the Christian Right had been significantly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. Over the past 20 years the leading proponents of Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology have included Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin.

Diamond explained that "the primary importance of the [Christian Reconstructionist] ideology is its role as a catalyst for what is loosely called 'dominion theology.'" According to Diamond, "Largely through the impact of Rushdoony's and North's writings, the concept that Christians are Biblically mandated to 'occupy' all secular institutions has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right." (italics in the original).

In a series of articles and book chapters Diamond expanded on her thesis. She called Reconstructionism "the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology," and observed that "promoters of Reconstructionism see their role as ideological entrepreneurs committed to a long-term struggle."

So Christian Reconstructionism was the most influential form of dominion theology, and it influenced both the theological concepts and political activism of white Protestant conservative evangelicals mobilized by the Christian Right.

But very few evangelicals have even heard of dominion theology, and fewer still embrace Christian Reconstructionism. How do we explain this, especially since our critics are quick to point it out?
The answer lies in teasing apart the terminology and how it is used.

Christian Reconstructionism is a form of theocratic dominion theology. Its leaders challenged evangelicals across a wide swath of theological beliefs to engage in a more muscular and activist form of political participation. The core theme of dominion theology is that the Bible mandates Christians to take over and "occupy" secular institutions.

A number of Christian Right leaders read what the Christian Reconstructionists were writing, and they adopted the idea of taking dominion over the secular institutions of the United States as the "central unifying ideology" of their social movement. They decided to gain political power through the Republican Party.

This does not mean most Christian Right leaders became Christian Reconstructionists. It does mean they were influenced by dominion theology. But they were influenced in a number of different ways, and some promote the theocratic aspects more militantly than others.

It helps to see the terms dominionism, dominion theology, and Christian Reconstructionism as distinct and not interchangeable. While all Christian Reconstructionists are dominionists, not all dominionists are Christian Reconstructionists.

More

Kristenisme Dalam Politik AS

Apakah Amerika Serikat telah berubah menjadi negara agama???

Jawabannya lihat di sini: Rise Of Faith Within GOP Has Created America's First Religious Party


It's time for the pancake breakfast in the basement meeting hall of St. Peter's Catholic Church in this faded but proud industrial city on the Ohio River. It's Sunday morning before the 11 o'clock mass, and as swarms of kids dig into their syrupy meals, the parents talk politics and religion.

"This country is in trouble and has to get back to the Christian values it was founded on," says Tracy McManamon, an insurance salesman. "We can't be afraid to talk about it. We have to speak up."

Later, upstairs in the sanctuary, Father Ray Ryland echoes that sentiment. In his "prayer of the faithful," he hopes that elected officials will take a "pro-life" position on the issues of the day.

Rick Santorum plans to spend Super Tuesday evening in Steubenville High School, across the street from St. Peter's. The parishioners in the church on Sunday were uniform in their support, even if they acknowledged that he might never be president. "At least he's willing to say out loud what we all believe," said McManamon.

If Santorum hopes to stop Mitt Romney's fitful but effective slog to the GOP nomination, the former Pennsylvania senator will need a massive turnout from church basements and sanctuaries such as these. But whether he wins or loses is almost beside the point. Santorum's unexpected and, in some ways, astonishing rise from semi-obscurity is symbolic of something far more important in politics.

Whatever happens on Super Tuesday, the Republican primary season already has made history. The contest has confirmed the establishment of America's first overtly religious major political party.

The signs are numerous, but it's still easy to miss the big picture: that the GOP now is best understood as the American Faith Party (AFP) and its members as conservative Judeo-Christian-Mormon Republicans. The basement of St. Peter's is just one clubhouse.


"There has never been anything like it in our history," said Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. "'God's Own Party' now really is just that."

The new GOP does not seem to be sitting well with the American people as a whole, or even with many traditional Republicans. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine is only the latest non-AFP-type Republican to decide to leave politics and/or the party. In the new ruling class, "revival tent" proponents are driving out the old "big tent" advocates. And a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 40 percent of American adults think less of the party after watching its transformation this electoral season.

The American Faith Party is a doctrinally schizophrenic coalition bound by faith in the power of biblical values to create a better country; by fear of federal power, especially that of the federal courts and President Barack Obama and his administration; and by fear of rising Islamic political power around the world.

The AFP unites Catholic traditionalists who especially revere the papal hierarchy; evangelical, fundamentalist and charismatic Protestants; some strands of Judaism, including those ultra-orthodox on social issues and Jews for whom an Israel with biblical borders and a capital in Jerusalem is a spiritual imperative, not just a matter of diplomatic balance in the Middle East; and Mormons, who ironically aren't regarded as Christians by most other members of the coalition. Romney, a devout Mormon, is their man.

The four still-standing Republican presidential candidates are all AFP members in good standing on most of the party's key agenda items. The GOP platform is sure to feature all of them, including opposition to abortion and gay marriage; measures to counter what Republicans regard as attacks on religious liberty; expressions of fear about the extent of federal power, especially from the courts, on social and medical issues; libertarian economic policies that limit regulation and taxes (for religious conservatives and economic libertarians share a common enemy: government); denunciations of Islamic political power; and support for Israel. (Ron Paul is a dissenter on the last two points.)

All the candidates, including Paul, adhere to the AFP's central operational tenet: that professing your own faith -- once verboten in American politics -- is a necessary precondition to being taken seriously.

In the American Faith Party, in other words, every day begins with a prayer breakfast, a public ritual that used to occur only once a year.

Religious parties are familiar phenomena in most of the world. Europe has Christian Democrats in every country. Egypt has the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Bill of Rights ban on the establishment of religion and religious tests pushed American parties away from such overt identification. Historians say that never before has the U.S. had a party whose central identity and avowed cause was the profession of religious faith in politics.

A generation in the making and like the original Republican Party it has supplanted, the AFP is the product of a fundamental moral conflict -- in this case, over the relative roles of church and state, and over the role of religion in guiding public policy.

Ronald Reagan began the process a generation ago, reaching out to evangelical, Bible Belt Protestants, who had shied away from politics ever since the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in Tennessee in the 1920s. In Reagan's case, the motivating force was the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision supporting a woman's right to an abortion, which led Catholics to ally themselves with conservative Protestants.

To be sure, there have been other avowedly religious presidential candidates in recent years, among them Pat Robertson, a televangelist, in 1988 and Mike Huckabee, a preacher in his spare time, in 2008.

But never before has the entire party essentially been singing from the hymnal. Candidates in 2012 who did not do so, such as Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain, went nowhere; implausible entrants such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry went further than they would have in an earlier era of the Republican Party.

As seen from strongholds such as Steubenville, the new party is built in equal measure on hope and fear. Its leaders and adherents deny their goal is theocracy and say they only want religious freedoms protected and an acknowledgement that biblical faith and morals were central to the founders' vision of America -- and must be central again if America is to survive at all.

There's enough resonance to their concern about the secularization of American culture to give their grievances credibility and even populist nobility. "When they frame their cause in terms of religious liberty, that's something that Americans agree with," said Wilentz. "That approach creates an inspiring sense of mission."

According to historians, the closest entity akin to the new AFP was the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party of the early 19th century. "They were all Protestants, but they were entirely about what they were against, not what they were for," said author and historian Michael Beschloss. The Prohibition and civil rights movements were church-based, but their objectives weren't per se religious, said Wilentz.

To the parishioners of St. Peter's in Steubenville, this history is beside the point. Their point is that government alone can and will never nourish the proper regard for the sanctity of life, the dignity of humanity and the role of faith in creating moral character that Americans need to govern themselves in a democracy.

"We can't ever think that a fetus is somehow undesirable or even disposable," said Justine Schmiesing, a mother of seven who noted that she does not "contracept." "We don't want government to act in ways that ignore life, and that is why we are speaking up."

Judge backs U.S. right to seize Manhattan building allegedly controlled by Iran


The United States is set to seize control of a midtown Manhattan skyscraper prosecutors claim is secretly owned by Iran, the U.S. justice department said, though the ruling is to be appealed, AFP reported.

According to the report, a federal judge ruled in favor of the government's legal case this week, claiming that the 36-storey Piaget Building's owners had violated Iran sanctions and money laundering laws.

Manhattan Federal Prosecutor Preet Bharara said the decision upheld the justice department claims that the owner of the building "was (and is) a front for Bank Melli, and thus a front for the Government of Iran".

Prosecutors allege that the building's owners, the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corporation, transferred rental income and other funds to Iran's state-owned Bank Melli.

Alavi also ran a charitable organization for Iran and managed the building for the Iranian government, the statement said.

Built in the 1970s by a non-profit organization operated by the Shah of Iran - and financed with a Bank Melli loan - the building was expropriated by the new Iranian government after the 1979 revolution, prosecutors allege.

The U.S. Treasury Department has instituted tight sanctions against Iran, blacklisting a number of Iranian companies and organizations and putting very tight controls on the ability of any group or business to transfer funds into Iran.

The restrictions seek to pressure Tehran into giving up what the West claims is a program to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.


More
 
Support : Your Link | Your Link | Your Link
Copyright © 2013. The Politics of Religion - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger