Intelligent Design

Smearing ID-friendly Bachmann – and philosopher Nancy Pearcey – New Yorker resorts to scary … fiction

Spread the love
Total Truth Cover

In “Dangerous Influences: The New Yorker, Michele Bachmann, and Me” (Human Events, August 12, 2011), philosopher Nancy Pearcey muses on how Michele Bachmann (that ID-friendly US Prez hopeful) came to be associated with a “political movement” Bachmann had probably never heard of.

[Note: Also ID-friendly Perry to declare tomorrow in South Carolina – breaks Beltway rules ]

Pearcey’s writings, especially Total Truth, were an influence on Bachmann, and Pearcey – who  had never heard of  the supposed “Dominionist” movement herself – was associated with it  by a New Yorker writer in a smear job on Bachmann.

So was her long-deceased mentor, Francis Schaeffer. (momentary consternation … Google … Google …)

… there is a little-known group of Christians who claim the term, though they are typically called Reconstructionists. Apparently it was sociologist Sara Diamond who expanded Dominionism into a general term of abuse, based on a passage in Genesis where God tells humans to exercise “dominion” over the earth.

By that definition, anyone who respects Genesis as Scripture would be a Dominionist—including Jews and Catholics, as well as Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals. And not a few of the American Founders.

So, it appears,

“Dominionist” is the new “Fundamentalist”—the preferred term of abuse, intended to arouse fear and contempt, and downgrade the status of targeted groups of people.

[Ryan] Lizza labeled the two of us Dominionists. Dozens of liberal websites have picked up the story and repeated the charge.

Smears succeed because people want their vulgar hatreds confirmed more than they want to know – or want anyone else to know – what is happening. Ask Frank Beckwith, around whom a fictional scenario was built by the Darwin lobby.

What’s fairly new here, however, is that the smear is not just false, every element is fiction.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

15 Replies to “Smearing ID-friendly Bachmann – and philosopher Nancy Pearcey – New Yorker resorts to scary … fiction

  1. 1
    uoflcard says:

    Smears succeed because people want their vulgar hatreds confirmed more than they want to know – or want anyone else to know – what is happening.

    Nail, Head.

    I’ve read Total Truth and have never heard of “Dominionist”. And as far as the use of the word “dominion” in Genesis, it’s not even talking about people, but our environment and animals. It does not imply enslaving these things, but caring for them, overseeing them, sustaining them and ensuring their well-being so that our well-being can be sustained.

  2. 2
    johnnyb says:

    I live in a fundy state (Oklahoma), a fundy city (Tulsa), have gone to several fundy Churches, went to a fundy college (Oklahoma Baptist), and never, NOT ONCE, have I ever met a dominionist.

    I’m not saying that dominionism doesn’t exist, just that (a) the movement is microscopic (and therefore hardly worth talking about), and (b) probably isn’t even a fundy enterprise.

    Interestingly, most negative stereotypes of fundamentalists actually come from the fact that people impose their negative stereotypes of Christianity onto fundamentalism. Even when the behavior occurs in non-fundy groups, it is immediately marked as a fundy idea, and all fundies get painted with it, even if no fundy would ever have anything to do with it!

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:


    This is so sad, and so sadly revealing.

    And you have indeed spotlighted the key issue on how the big lie works, though (on the counsels of Herr Schicklegruber himself) there is also a credibility side to it: people cannot believe hey are being lied to so blatantly by such a “credible” source.

    Then, of course, if one “always” thought so, “confirmation” by such an august source is most welcome news, see how “smart” we are. (“Brights” from Anti Evo who monitor UD obsessively, and those of like ilk, kindly take a long look in the mirror before doing any more foaming over with hostility and slander.)

    I again link on how to grade media sources. (This on basic critical thinking — just five minutes, Anti Evo denizens — will also help, and this on selective hyperskepticism is the next step beyond.)

    Also, since there is a tendency to accuse people of Dominionism, I guess “fundies” must be wearing out, I suggest a glance here on a take on sustainable development. And yes, look very carefully at what that bronze age moral moral monster — don’t you smell an obvious smear when you see it? — actually teaches as the core of ethics with application to community reformation, transformation and even environmental restoration.

    It is high time we move the discussion on beyond malicious caricatures, if we care for the future of our civilisation.

    GEM of TKI

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let me snip from that briefing note on SD:


    >> [D]ebates over SD sometimes deteriorate into yet another version of the long-standing, heated left/right, market-based/centrally planned, statist/conservative/libertarian, developmentalism/dependency political, theological, philosophical and economic debates that so marked the twentieth century.

    However, this needs not be so. For, fundamentally, the SD concept is an application of the so-called “Categorical Imperative” [CI] of Ethical theory, to the context of development.

    So, we may begin afresh by viewing the SD question in terms of Kant’s point in formulating the CI: we should not make self-serving “exceptions” in our decision-making and actions, whether at personal, family, institutional or community levels.

    To apply the CI to SD, we first rephrase the WCED’s definition [–> yes, this paraphrases no less than Gro Harlem Bruntland of Norway et al] in a more operational form:

    Development initiatives are “sustainable” when/if they help to “more adequately” and “more fairly” meet the needs of the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

    In other words, we should make decisions about development initiatives in light of their likely impacts on all of the relevant stakeholders in a given situation (including the poor/powerless, future generations and the natural world). In doing so, we should specifically consider the impacts of environmental factors, constraints and trends.

    The link to the CI is plain.

    But, in turn, the CI is directly related to Jesus’ Golden Rule [GR] in (1) Matt. 7:12, his comments on the Greatest Commandment in (2) Matt 22:37 – 40, and to the main background texts for his remarks: (a) Deuteronomy 6:1 – 18 and (b) Leviticus 19:15 – 18:

    (1) . . . in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

    (2) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

    (a) These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe . . . Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey . . . . Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God is one [Heb., echad: complex, rather than simple, unity. (This verse is the Shema, the great prayer/creed of Judaism.)]. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them . . . . When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers . . . then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery . . . Do what is right and good in the LORD’s sight, so that it may go well with you . . .

    (b) Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly. Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD

    I find it particularly interesting that in the Mosaic Law the long-term well being of both the people and the land — the proper aim of development — is closely tied to creating and sustaining a culture of loving and serving God. (Such a culture will be marked by thankfulness, respect, justice, truth, humility and equity in personal, institutional and community relationships, decisions and activities.)

    In short, we can see that the SD concept ultimately derives from the application of the Golden Rule to the context of life in the community as stewards of the lands God has put in our care; thus to justice, economics, governance, moral education, development and environmental challenges. Clearly, SD must therefore be a matter of interest to Christian disciples, especially those concerned to initiate reformation, transformation and God-blessed development . . . >>

    THAT is what is being caricatured, smeared and dismissed, often by people whose a priori evolutionary materialism has in it no foundational IS strong enough to bear the weight of OUGHT. (Cf here on that issue.)

    It’s high time we realised what is really going on and stopped the madness.

    GEM of TKI

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: The worldviews challenged may want to start here and here, to see the frame of thought for Schaeffer et al [And the figures beyond Schaeffer], and even yours truly. (That concept is a frameworking one for my mental toolbox. I forget that here are many who have not a clue. Even Wikipedia is helpful, here.)

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    I wish that instead of attacking Christians, which the majority of Americans are by the way, by making up derogatory names to call them, that these ‘big media’ people should take a little time to personally check and see if Christ actually rose from the dead?!? It seems to me that ‘if’ Christ rose from the dead then that ‘fact’, once it is established personally for them, should be of far more importance to them, especially since we are all ‘appointed to die’, ‘big media’ people included;

    Consider these following quotes on the historical Jesus:

    A British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.”

    Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”

    Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

    Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

    “I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
    Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive cases.

    “Let [the Gospel’s] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”
    Simon Greenleaf from his book “Testimony of the Evangelicals”. Greenleaf was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”. He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

    “I know men, and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” – C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41

    Shroud Of Turin’s Unique 3 Dimensionality – video

    Shroud Of Turin – Photographic Negative – 3D Hologram – The Lamb – video

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life! – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection?

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Front and Back 3-D images – articles and videos

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Dominionism and Dominion Theology are pejorative terms that are applied by critics, and not generally adopted by a group to describe itself.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Wiki, of course is not exactly a reliable source on such matters, save as to what the evolutionary materialist secularist humanists — I just described a worldview and life agenda that is in our time institutionally dominant in leading countries or at least highly influential — want the polarised, indoctrinated masses to think. It’s not locked, let’s hear what is done to attempts to correct.

    F/N 2: Sir Lionel won 245 successive Murder cases in several commonwealth countries. At one point IIRC, he was both Barbados and Guyana Ambassador to several countries.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    kf, If you’re talking about my link, I read it and was actually pleasantly surprised. I thought the article on Christian Reconstruction was pretty fair.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:


    I repeat, on matters like this, Wiki is not to be trusted.

    Remember, one trick is to use subtle wedge words, that mean one thing to one audience and another to the in-group, while failing to give key information that would give a materially different understanding, i.e willful support of misunderstandings and biases.

    So even when something is not as blatant as with the Wiki ID article, it is simply not to be trusted.


    Try this our for a subtle wedgie:

    to an extent it [reconstructionism] had its beginnings in the colonial governments of early New England (especially that of the Massachusetts Bay colony)

    Do we have to explicitly spell that out: “w-i-t-c-h h-u-n-t-s”?

    (Meanwhile, just who are conducting witch hunt after witch hunt and smear campaign after smear campaign today? Who have constituted themselves a new inquisition dressed in the holy lab coats? [Onlookers, view here.])

    I suggest that if you want to hear a reconstructionist speak in his own voice, try here.

    Near as I can figure this is a postmillennial Reformation derived movement that sees the eschatological frame in terms of waves of revival and reformation leading to nations across the world that voluntarily are reformed in alignment with the Scriptural traditions [through the superiority of the Christian worldview and the self-referentially incoherent collapse of major alternatives], and that culminates in a period of godly government leading to the return of Christ after an era of voluntarily accepted Christian civilisation. If anything they will indeed be fairly right wing in the proper modern sense, i.e rather libertarian: the absolutely minimal state.

    That postmillennial position — why they did not like Lindsey’s left behind series — alone means they will have absolutely minimal support among today’s Evangelical and related Christians.

    And, most Christians do not tend to extreme libertarianism.

    Similarly, penal servitude is involuntary servitude. Read what that means in terms of as in not-free.

    Next, pick a subtle statement:

    Although relatively insignificant in terms of the number of self-described adherents, Christian Reconstructionism has played a role in promoting the trend toward explicitly Christian politics in the larger U.S. Christian Right.[11] This is the wider trend to which some critics refer, generally, as Dominionism. They also allegedly have influence disproportionate to their numbers among the advocates of the growth of the Christian homeschooling and other Christian education movements that seek independence from the direct oversight or support of the civil government. Because their numbers are so small compared to their influence, they are sometimes accused of being secretive and conspiratorial.[12][13][14][15] They deny this, noting they have published thousands of newsletters and hundreds of books . . .

    Multiply this by the mentality that projects on these, the view that they are Christo-fascist Nazis [–> never mind that as National SOCIALISM highlights, Nazism is a statist ideology of the LEFT], seeking to impose a right-wing theocracy and dictatorship.

    In short this is held to be one of the sources of the plague that is supposed to mark Christians in civil society as a threat to liberty.

    All the time the major, Bible-rooted Christian contribution to the rise of civil rights, liberty and democracy are somehow glided over in a telling silence. And of course the poisonous pall cast will stain how any Christian who dares raise the issue that the state is indeed under God as his accountable servant to do good and uphold justice, defending the civil peace from its enemies, will be perceived.

    Subtle bias is in many ways WORSE than blatant raillery. At least the latter announces itself.

    there doubtless are many problems with Reconstructionism, but Wiki is not the place to go to learn about them, or essentially anything else of consequence on matters relating to the Christian faith.


    GEM of TKI

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: neat video;

    Jericho Unearthed – Bible Confirmed Once Again – video

  12. 12
    News says:

    Mung/kairosfocus, in the early 1990s, some talk of “Christian Reconstruction” rolled through the Christian press in Canada. It sounded pretty weird, and dropped through the news hole swiftly. Never heard of it again, except in the fevered imaginings of Troothers, now and then.

    “Dominionist” – a term surely not used then – would have been a problem in that part of the world because “Dominion” refers to the country itself. ( = Dominion of Canada) UD News staff remember when Canada Day was called Dominion Day.

    But, whoops, that’s the real world and only in this universe.

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    God did tell us to have dominion over the earth.
    Yet this was understood to be intellectual and wiping things out.
    In fact god says over the birds and the fishes.
    this has not been achieved yet as we don’t know how to do it. Its too hard.
    in fact I suspect it might mean being able to change creatures to our needs as long as they stay within their kinds.
    I suspect this as I suspect we were to populate the universe and make our own planets and life in them to our advantage and whim.
    Rule means control and not about mere execution.
    In fact when God gave the command there was not a plan for death to be amongst the animals.
    Likewise the physical earth was to be controled and we only do that a little.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:


    As I said, there’s not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace that Reconstructionism would be seriously taken on board as a system in today’s evangelical world, which by and large shapes its eschatological framework on debates in the pre-millennial framework.

    (That’s why Camping’s date setting folly had any traction whatsoever. Don’t forget the Left Behind series in aggregate is probably the bestseller in recent years for Christian books.)

    What is being done is the usual well-poisoning game: they can find some fringe group out there that lets them take the legitimate call to reformation of life, church and community [including government — “Go tell that FOX . . .”] that can be found in the Bible and twist it into an accusation of extremism.

    The better to get away with the imposition of ruthless, amoral factionism on the community. As Plato warned against 2350 years ago.

    Here is how Paul speaks in the major NT passage that speaks to the dominion of Christ and calls for reformation of community:

    Ephesians 4:9-24

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    9( In saying, “He [Christ] ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?[a] 10He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[b] and teachers,[c] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[d] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

    15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

    The New Life
    17Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

    20But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22to put off your old self,[e] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.


    Ephesians 4:9 Or the lower parts of the earth?
    Ephesians 4:11 Or pastors
    Ephesians 4:11 Or the shepherd-teachers
    Ephesians 4:13 Greek to a full-grown man
    Ephesians 4:22 Greek man; also verse 24

    Do you see extremism in that, apart from extreme purity and determination to progress in the path of virtue by the truth in love and right conduct?

    And, as for Wikipedia, once it touches on any topic where the blatant evolutionary materialist secularism that rules its roost will bias the articles, take warning.

    GEM of TKI

  15. 15

Leave a Reply