Saturday, June 11, 2005

Roy Moore on the Treaty of Tripoli

Yesterday's episode of NOW with David Brancaccio did a good job of describing Dominionism. First, Brancaccio interviewed Chris Hedges who accurately described Dominionism as a "militant biblicism" that declares the U.S. to be a "Christian Nation" and seeks to make "biblical law" the law of the land. Then he interviewed a Dominionist -- former Alabama Judge Roy Moore.

Transcripts of the interviews and online video of the broadcast should be up next week. If you missed the broadcast yesterday, I encourage you to read the interviews or watch the broadcast.

Everyone ought to see Roy Moore's more than creative explanation of the denial that "the United States of America was not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797). He said something to the effect that all the treaty meant was that the U.S. was not the kind of Christian Nation that would engage in crusades.

6 comments:

Mike said...

It's funny how fundamentalists are so strict about being literal until it's something they don't agree with, at which time they twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain it away.

Mike said...

It's funny how certain fundamentalists are so strict about being literal until it's something they don't agree with, at which time they twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain it away.

Traveller said...

Great blog, Bruce! I thank my having happened on Frederick Clarkson's blog which led to yours. Seculars and Christians have been set against each other by the latest group in power. Your blog is the bridge back to sanity. Many thanks.

Anonymous said...

I think it is funny how liberals twist the Bible around to make it fit their liberal interpretation and preferred lifestyle. I happen to believe that the Bible is inerrent and the Truths are fitting for the times, no matter when or where.

Greek Shadow said...

Actually annon, it's called rationalizing, those who you call liberals (most likely anyone capable of an original independent thought) are aware of what they are doing and are not bothered by it. Fundamentalists rationalize (which is what Judge Moore's statement represents) but are in a state of denial when they do it.

grandma1 said...

Dallas Morning News has an article called Excerpts from the editorial board's interview with the White house counselor. Doesn't name him. Question: Do bloggers fit into the White House's communications strategy? Answer: We take them very seriously. We have people in my office who are dedicated strictly to monitoring the blogs because a lot of times they're ahead of the curve on things. Question Which blogs are most important for you to watch? Answer: The ones I think have the most influence on the Washington press (are) Mickey Kaus, Slate's summary of the papers, (which) every morning sets the tone, and Andrew Sullivan. For conservatives, Powerline, Instapundit, National Review Online's blog and others have a lot of influence. ABC's political unit has the Note, which has a lot of influence. Wonkette.com causes enough stirs that she forces me to check it every day. Question: Does the president read blogs? Answer: No

That leads me to point you to Doonesbury carton in todays paper Bushism of 2004-2005.