The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20061031200551/http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118805.html
 
Forgot your password?
October 2006   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Christians in the Hand of an Angry God (part 2)

Posted on 2004.11.29 at 03:34
Tags:
If all you ever saw of the World Science Ficton Convention was the opening ceremonies, the masquerade, the Guest of Honor Speech, the Hugo Awards presentation, and closing ceremonies, and you only saw that on television, and you missed half of what you saw because TV news anchors were talking over it, would you have any real feel for what it's actually like to be at a large science fiction convention? No. You'd only be seeing the scripted parts, the big showy parts. The real meat and potatos of a science fiction convention, the real experience, is to be found out in the halls, in chance meetings. It's in panel discussions, where you may actually learn something from or about the science fiction industry. And even more than that, it's in the hospitality suites, both official and unofficial, because that's where people actually meet, socialize, try overtly to hype their own reputations, and try gently to persuade each other to each others' pet projects. So should it surprise you to know that political party conventions aren't any different? State political party conventions run a lot like regional SF conventions. The big national political party conventions that happen every four years are more like Worldcon than you might otherwise know. Oh, the standards in funny costuming are different, but no weirder. One difference: the sexily dressed women are paid professionals at the national political conventions, and generally kept more out of sight. But otherwise, there are more similarities than differences. Sometimes it's even the same people; former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a science fiction fan before he was a successful politician. (Does this surprise you in the least? I thought not.)

I tell you this so that you'll be better able to imagine one important part of any political party convention, whether state or national: caucus meetings. The definition of the word "caucus" is not widely taught these days, mostly because caucusing has gone out of style, and so it is widely misunderstood. A caucus is nothing more (or less) than a group of people who've agreed upon a single goal. To that end, they all pledge before any votes are taken that whether they win or lose any vote within the caucus, when they leave the caucus room and go their separate ways, they will support the decision of the caucus as enthusiastically as if it had been what they personally had wanted to do, all along. Almost the entire political party process takes place in caucuses of one kind or another. If you aren't willing to caucus, you aren't really a player, you're not really in the game.

During the 1964 Republican Party National Convention there was yet another meeting of the Republican anti-communist caucus. But this one broke new ground. Now, I was 4 at the time, so how can I know? Well, I heard a great deal about it from one of the caucus members. Dr. John A. Stormer was the author of the 1964 best-selling anti-communist conspiracy theory exposé None Dare Call it Treason. In it, he "proved" that the US State Department and the US Department of Education had both been completely subverted and taken over from within by Russian-backed Communist Party cells. (Oddly enough, when the KGB archives were opened in 1989, he turned out to have been right about the State Department. It's not terribly surprising, really; Foggy Bottom has long been manned by people who identified more with foreigners than with their own countrymen, and has a long history of forgetting which country pays its salaries.)

Dr. Stormer was also a state delegate from Missouri for Barry Goldwater, and as so was obviously at the 1964 Republican National Convention. And given his then-new celebrity in the anti-communist movement, it is no shock that he was a member of the anti-communist caucus, and had been for years. 12 years later, in 1976, he was a private high school administrator at Faith Christian Academy, where I was attending classes. I was taking his (mandatory) class in "Principles of Spiritual Growth" during the 1976 election season. One day we were far enough ahead of the lesson plan that he declared an open question and answer period. Since he (and the rest of the school) had been drumming into us how essential it was to return the nation to Christian rule, and since I knew he hated the "Rockefeller" (internationalist) side of his own party, I asked him why he was backing secularist left-wing Rockefeller-supporting Republican Gerald Ford over born-again evangelical fundamentalist Christian Democrat Jimmy Carter? In order to explain that decision to us, he told us the story of that 1964 meeting in San Francisco, and how he felt bound by those caucus results to back the party no matter who they nominated, and why. I was young when he told it. I'm fuzzy on some of the details. After 12 years, he may have been fuzzy on some of the details himself, and Lord knows, he was one of those hard-to-listen-to people who constantly says "umm" and chews on his glasses, even in the middle of a sentence. But I remember the gist of it, and as history has unfolded (and as I have learned more and more about politics myself), I've come to understand more and more of what he told me. And in light of the last 25 years of history, in particular, what he said about that 40-year-ago meeting chills my blood.

Put simply: The Republican anti-communist caucus was made up of people who shared two beliefs. First of all, to be a member of that caucus, you had to believe that the still-expanding worldwide spread of communism was the single greatest threat in the world; not just to them personally, but to the US, and not just to the US, but to the future of the whole human race. For the wealthy people who had long made up the base of the Republican party, this was an easy idea to sell. They knew perfectly well what would happen to their wealth after a communist takeover of the United States. But what may not be clear to you yet is just how equally obvious this fact was to any Christian with any knowledge of, or connections within, the field of missionary work in Asia. When the communists took over Russia, they expelled all foreign missionaries, and nearly all Christian ministers were internally exiled to slave labor death camps in Siberia. When the communists took over China, they were even less subtle: all missionaries and Christian clergy who didn't escape the country were simply murdered in cold blood. When the communists took over North Korea, they made the Chinese look gentle and friendly: missionaries, ministers, Christians who refused to renounce their faith, and their children were brutally tortured to death. Anyway, the second thing that you had to believe to be a member of the Republican anti-communist caucus was that only the Republican party could be trusted to be sufficiently militant and vigilant against communism. Caucus members agreed that while there might be some staunch anti-communist Democrats, that party was also home to a great many socialists who would secretly welcome a communist takeover of the United States. It was a well known documented fact that Soviet agents had been trying to infiltrate and take over various local Democratic parties; Republican anti-communists believed that some unknown number of them must have succeeded. Democratic Presidents had lost Russia, China, and Cuba to communism, had failed to expel the communists from North Korea, and were holding back from declaring all-out war against the communists in Vietnam. And, of course, the Republicans blamed the Democrats for the perceived failures of the Army-McCarthy hearings and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

However, if you're living in 1964 and you think that the Republicans in the US are the only hope that the world has of resisting and overthrowing global communism, you've got a really big problem: you're on the losing side of American politics. Democrats had controlled the city governments of every major city in the United States for decades, with no end in sight. They controlled both houses of Congress. They had the majority of the governors' offices, and controlled one or both houses of almost every state legislature. The only Republican to win the Presidency in over 30 years was war hero Dwight Eisenhower. If you really actually wanted to win an election to public office in the US in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or even 70s you ran in the Democratic primary, either as a machine candidate or a reform candidate. The Republicans were seen as the wealthy person's party (which they were), the party that had brought about the Great Depression; the Democrats were seen as the party of the poor and the middle class, the party that had ended the Great Depression ... and not coincidentally won both World Wars. So it was at the 1964 Republican anti-communist caucus that somebody, and I think Dr. Stormer said it was George Will, laid down the law, and hit all the delegates present with a big whopping clue-by-four: if communism was to be defeated, then the Republicans were going to have to become a majority party. Seems obvious in hindsight, doesn't it?

But there's a catch. There's always a catch. In this case, the catch must have been this. The traditional Republican party is the party of Satan himself, and thereby unpalatable to nearly all of the 90% or more of the US public that self-identified as Christian. I am not exaggerating here, not one tiny little bit. (Nor am I alone in this. Remember, I've met and done volunteer work alongside Dr. Michael Aquino, the founder of the largest Satanic church in the world, and you have never met a more staunch Republican in your life. Nor did he make any bones about why: he is a Republican Party loyalist because the Republican Party stands in total opposition to the Christian scriptures.) Throughout the gospels, take everything that Jesus said. Now reverse each and every statement. Each and every one of those reversals is a traditional plank of the Republican party platform. Republicans urge people to work hard, earn as much money as possible, and save it. Jesus said, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) Republicans are the party of the arms manufacturers. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9) Republicans believe that how much money a person earns or has is a good measure of that person's worth. Jesus said, "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13) If a rich person comes to the Republicans and asks "what shall I do with my life?" they tell him to save his wealth, invest it in his own business and in the businesses of other wealthy people, keep his costs (including labor) as low as possible, in order to sell as many goods at as low a price as possible, and thereby enrich the world. When a rich person came to Jesus and asked him what he should do with is life, here's what actually happened (Luke 18:18-25):
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And, of course, there's the "little problem" that I discussed yesterday. The Republicans have long been the party that believes that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. They believe, and teach, write, and legislate, and mandate that the textbooks say that if any American is poor, it is his own fault for not doing what it takes to become rich. As I've written before, Ronald Reagan elevated the hating of poor people to an artform: Ronald Reagan taught an entire generation of Americans that it is morally acceptable to hate the poor. And as I showed you from the Christian scriptures themselves yesterday, then if the Bible is any guide, anybody who has learned that lesson, and acted on that belief, and has since died ... for them it is too late. On Judgement Day, they will be cast into the fires of Hell by an angry God, and in those fires they will burn for all eternity.

How did the gospel stop being an obstacle to a Republican majority? Well, among the people in that fateful room in 1964 was a high official, I think Dr. Stormer said it was the dean himself, of Dallas Theological Seminary. And what you have to understand about Dallas Theological Seminary is that this is the top school for fundamentalist intelligentsia. When three or more people argue a point of doctrine in a fundamentalist setting, when the DTS graduate speaks, everybody else shuts up and listens. And what has finally dawned on me is that Dr. Stormer really did mean what he was implying: in 1964, the leading intellectual and spiritual figures of the fundamentalist community decided to stop teaching the actual gospel as it was written. They have to have decided to under-emphasize and explain away anything in the actual teachings of Jesus Christ that would stand in the way of people voting Republican. They conformed their doctrine and teachings to the doctrines of God's own enemy. To save their lives from the threat of communism, whether they realized it or not (and they probably didn't, for the power of the human mind to rationalize decisions made out of fear is nearly infinite), they sold their very souls and the souls of tens of millions of their followers into the service of Satan.

And to increase their popularity during a time of social turmoil, and to further distract the masses, for the teachings of Jesus Christ and His own disciples and apostles, they made a straight-forward substitution for the teachings of Jesus Christ. Instead, they took up the teachings, and ways, and doctrines of Jesus's worst enemies, the Jewish sect that most earnestly sought and ultimately obtained his death: the Pharisees. But that can wait for tomorrow.

Comments:


Fox Surprise!!!
[info]metaphorge at 2004-11-29 02:05 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Instead, they took up the teachings, and ways, and doctrines of Jesus's worst enemies, the Jewish sect that most earnestly sought and ultimately obtained his death: the Pharisees...

...known today as the Dominionists.

It's long been my contention that the "anti-christ" spoken of metaphorically in Revelations is the fundamentalist branch of the Christian church itself.

Excellent explanation, as always.
matt
[info]hbergeronx at 2004-11-29 04:45 (UTC) (Permanent link)

of course

many fundamentalists and protestants would argue that the title of antichrist is reserved for the Catholic Pope, for many of the same (slightly modified) logical arguments.
I've Covered Wars, You Know
[info]miss_moonbat at 2004-11-29 03:52 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Brilliant stuff as always. I mean it, absolutely brilliant.

Having grown up in a house full of Charismatic Catholics, I can certainly appreciate this. I don't know the specifics of the Fundamentalist Baptist movement, but if it's anything like the Catholicism I grew up with, then consider my bones officialy chilled.
Cargo
[info]cargoweasel at 2004-11-29 04:12 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Nice work as always. This needs wider dissemination.

The 1964 Republican convention certainly seems from what I've read to be the igniting spark of the current Dominionist/Straussian takeover.

How do you see these plans meshing with the theories of Leo Strauss, among whose students numbered people like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz?
Dispatches from the Matchbox
[info]dreamking00 at 2004-11-29 06:25 (UTC) (Permanent link)
I presume that from where this is going, these Christian principles were debased in order to let the Republican party co-opt the religious voter base?

Second question--is Communism still a going concern to the degree of "we must keep Republicans in power or we're doomed," or has that been conveniently replaced by the threat of Islamic terrorism? Do people still adhere to the resolutions of the 1964 caucus, or has the "religious right" now reached critical mass, being a self-sustaining Republican vote machine regardless of what threat "necessitates" Republican majority?
Only as a doubtful guest
[info]pope_guilty at 2004-11-29 09:07 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Some of the Republicans have realized that the rest of us don't see Communism as a constant threat anymore, but several of them (spend a day cruising right-wing weblogs if you need proof) still chat it up. What gets me is how somehow liberals are both friends of the Islamofacists and of the communists... two groups that utterly loathe each other.

Of course, if they understood basic logic, the Republican Party's numbers wouldn't be so high...
J. Brad Hicks
[info]bradhicks at 2004-11-29 11:35 (UTC) (Permanent link)
I think it's the latter. Consider that this started 40 years ago, and that your average seminary graduate is at least 22 before he gets his first job. At this point, how many people can there possibly be left in the fundamentalist movements who remember the true gospel? Only the oldest surviving members would have even heard it as a little kid.
deus|diabolus
[info]deusdiabolus at 2004-11-29 07:27 (UTC) (Permanent link)
I like it.
Brennan M. O'Keefe
[info]harmfulguy at 2004-11-29 08:38 (UTC) (Permanent link)
This may be the closest thing I've ever heard of to a literal Deal with the Devil.
Caraig
[info]caraig at 2004-11-29 09:30 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Fascinating, and rather chilling.

HOWEVER... there is one point that bugs me. Even if the dean of the Dallas Theological Seminary agreed to this (as one poster said above) "Deal with the Devil," it wasn't as if there was a switch in every graduate of DTS which suddenly was flipped and they all became these pseudo-Christians. Indeed, there would have been many graduates of DTS that year, and in previous years, and graduates from other seminaries, who would have the right, proper, traditional true Christian set of beliefs.

What you describe above, the suborning of an entire faith to political purposes, is in and of itself possible; I believe that Islam, for example, has been subject to political pressures since its inception. What you describe would require the systematic subornation and/or cooperation of nearly every major Christian seminary in the US and nearly every (or at least most) Christian theologian (I guess the Christian equivalent of the Islamic imam) in the past 40 years. Such a deal with the dean of the DTS would not bear all that much fruit, certainly none immediately. It would require subtlity, and thus a great amount of time for the 'engineered dogmatic virus' the dean planted to spread. Forty years? Possible and likely, but why would the caucus you describe embark on such a long-term plan and thus run the risk of a communist takeover of the US in the interim?

While I would agree that it's shockingly easy to "memetically reprogram" large numbers of people, especially large numbers of people with already-similar beliefs, ("It's called 'tailoring the message to the audience,' Jon." "Shh, it sounds more ominous this way!") I'm not entirely sure, in a field as notoriously dogmatic as theology, that one person could have that much of an effect and still remain relatively anonymous and unsuspected of ulterior motives.

In all, however, a shocking and thought-provoking view. Even with the quibble I have above, there's much to mull over.
Caraig
[info]caraig at 2004-11-29 09:59 (UTC) (Permanent link)
And actually, one thing to elaborate on: Newt was a science fiction fan? Actually, yes, I'm completely surprised by that! I thought all fan-ness had to be surgicaly removed as part of the conversion process to become a politician. ^^
Doodle Bug
[info]minikin at 2004-11-29 09:54 (UTC) (Permanent link)
The only question I have about this is the assumption that I want my government to do for me, what is my religious responsibility.

I do not hate the poor, or condone it. I question the ability of the government to effectively help the poor. I have taken to heart your earlier writings about Christ's word on this subject -- a timely reminder.

Mother Kali
[info]kali_ma at 2004-11-29 12:55 (UTC) (Permanent link)
This is great stuff. I was raised by these people - I remeber, in the early 80's, when they started teaching that God WANTS his good and righteous people to be rich, and that wealth was a sign of his blessings. When I was 17, I read the words of Jesus for myself, deliberately, and was shocked to realize that everything I had been taught was wrong. I make some of these same arguments to fundies sometimes when I feel like banging my head against a brick wall, and it is like they cannot hear me. "Sure, Jesus said to care for the poor, but Paul said works won't get you into heaven!" It's like a tape recording.
Deech
[info]savrille at 2004-11-29 13:24 (UTC) (Permanent link)
I'm going to try to be at Rivalz on Friday and attempt to remember a book for you to look at. It's a propaganda book called "Everything you need to know about Communism". It's really fascinating.

M. Aaron Smith
[info]felax at 2004-11-29 18:47 (UTC) (Permanent link)

Conspiracy

Very fascinating reading, to be sure. I must admit that it sounds quite a bit like conspiracy theory, but I'm also not one to completely dismiss CT. As usual for any CTs that I hear, though, the biggest question I have is one of scope. I certainly can see a wide shift taking place in the nature of Christianity in America due to this caucus, but I do somewhat question if this is the whole of the shift. Other shifts I suspect would be the Victorian movement (and if there was ever a sicker lady, I don't want to know) and the foundation of the Catholic Church itself. If anyone wishes to add from this list or explain why either or neither are true, feel free.
Immanentizing Wonderland
[info]amberite at 2004-11-29 20:17 (UTC) (Permanent link)
You're a genius. I want to meet you.
Laughing Collie
[info]collie13 at 2004-11-30 00:30 (UTC) (Permanent link)
A four of cups up in the corner of your page... I see you're feeling self-absorbed and going within, eh? ;)

Fascinating stuff you're writing. I always wondered how fundamentalists could agitate for the exact opposite of what Jesus was supposed to have said. I guess this explains their almost universal hatred of both the retired Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong, and the alleged "homosexual agenda" they keep spouting off about.

Thanks, and keep it coming.
Laughing Collie
[info]collie13 at 2004-11-30 00:41 (UTC) (Permanent link)
BTW, do you remember a guy named Bob Simpson who used to live in St. Louis, who was vaguely connected to the pagan stuff, gaming chair at Archon, and WeirdBase? He's bob at plusfive.com and he says "hi, great to hear from you (indirectly) again!" ;)
[info]nancylebov at 2004-11-30 08:52 (UTC) (Permanent link)
Lots of fascinating stuff there....

If the State Department was suborned by Communists, how come US foreign policy seems to have been disgraceful but effective opposition to the expansion of Communism?

In re whether Gingrich was an sf fan, it's still interesting that he managed to become a successful politician rather than just having one of the typical sf fan sets of political views. In general, people who are good at influencing the public are very rare in fandom--professional sales people aren't there, and fans tend to be very weak even at publicizing conventions.

In re plausibility of a widespread conspiracy: how hard can it be to convince people not to take on an unmanagable obligation?

Did most US Christians once think that the Republicans were the party of Satan?

Any theories about why Jesus started by talking to the rich man about the commandments instead of going straight to "sell all you have"?

And, for a bonus question--how did the left and Christianity get to be on such bad terms? I've seen a fair amount online from leftwing Christians about how unwelcome they've been made to feel in the left (not sure how much of this is mainstream and how much is radical). Afaik, religious people were quite welcome in the Civil Rights movement.
Brennan M. O'Keefe
[info]harmfulguy at 2004-12-01 08:30 (UTC) (Permanent link)
This goes a long way towards explaining Jack Chick. One of the big themes in his tracts and comics was the horrible tortures that Catholics and other non-Christians would inflict upon the True Believers if only they had the chance. I'd long dismissed this belief as paranoia at bast, or projection (of what he wanted to do the the non-Righteous) at worst. If Asian regimes really were doing such things to missionaries, Chick's fears are a lot more understandable.

He's still an evil, sick, hatemongering slime though.
inner_linbo
[info]inner_linbo at 2004-12-05 14:58 (UTC) (Permanent link)

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye

Good stuff! Reminds me of some things I started hearing back in high school.

Two things stick out for me from that time -

Number one was the rise of the group "Young Life", which pushed what seemed to me to be a terribly hedonistic form of "Christianity". It became very popular with high schoolers who could spend most of their time screwing around (literally and figuratively) and all would be absolved one night a week.

Number two was the explanation of the camel and the needle which I heard from a believer in the doctrine you're illuminating. They explained "the needle" as a gate to Jerusalem that it was merely difficult to get a camel through, but by no means impossible. So, of course the rich could get into heaven, they just had to knock a little louder.
Disenchanted Optimist
[info]greeneyedpagan at 2004-12-05 17:13 (UTC) (Permanent link)
These are fascinating posts.
If you don't mind, I'll add you to my friends list. I will probably even have salient comments to make from time to time. One can hope, at least.
We seem to have much in common.
Thank you.
Pip
[info]candika at 2004-12-06 19:29 (UTC) (Permanent link)
*shudder* Scary!
Phil
[info]satyrblade at 2004-12-07 07:00 (UTC) (Permanent link)
>former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a science fiction fan before he was a successful politician.

Pity he didn't learn many of the lessons and themes of science-fiction - imagination, tolerance, diversity, vision, change, transformation, consequences, the threat of domination, and the resistance to such domination that allows progress to occur. He seems to have watched Darth Vader, thought "Cool!", and modeled his view of government upon the Empire while missing the point entirely. (Either that or he was a Heinlein fan who didn't bother to read past Starship Troopers.)
Syzygy
[info]syzygy at 2004-12-07 13:13 (UTC) (Permanent link)
These essays are splendid and I'm so glad I came across them.

One thing that you don't address is what pre-Dominionist/pre-'64 American Christianity was like. Because you compare it to the ideal form of early Christianity, the very best of Christianity. And that is the most important comparison. But of course that's not what it was like in '63 or at least '53. Pre-Dominionist Christianity feels like a minor yet significant character that has been left out of the script.

Something to possibly keep in mind if you ever polish them for publication.
Previous Entry  Next Entry