Rep. Grayson calls opponent "Taliban."

Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical "warfare" is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, "unchastity before marriage."

The Biblically approved methods of execution include burning (at the stake for example), stoning, hanging, and "the sword." Gary North, the self-described economist of Reconstructionism, prefers stoning because, among other things, stones are cheap, plentiful, and convenient. Punishments for non-capital crimes generally involve whipping, restitution in the form of indentured servitude, or slavery. Prisons would likely be only temporary holding tanks, prior to imposition of the actual sentence.

“[T]he divide between Gothard and Rushdoony on divorce was a deep and abiding one. Gothard proposed using Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law as a resource for his massive ministry; the sheer volume of the resulting sales would have made Rushdoony both rich and famous. Gothard’s condition for moving forward on this was letter-simple: Rushdoony merely needed to remove the section on divorce from his book, and the highly profitable deal would be sealed.

Rushdoony refused the offer.”

So, while Gothard was categorically opposed to divorce, Rushdoony, a virulently racist Holocaust denier who espoused Geocentrism, was a little more liberal on divorce. In other words, the two men were otherwise in substantial agreement – except for the sticking point of divorce, they both agreed that Rushdoony’s vision for Biblical law should be imposed upon America.

That vision included instituting stoning as a form of capital punishment for rape, kidnapping, murder, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, “sodomy or homosexuality,” incest, striking a parent, extreme juvenile delinquency, and “unchastity before marriage.”


Daniel Webster’s association with Bill Gothard’s Institute For Basic Life Training has continued into the present, and a speech Webster made at a Nashville IBLP conference in 2009 has now become a source of controversy due to a new Alan Grayson campaign ad. Grayson is currently taking a media drubbing because of an ad campaign ad that calls Grayson’s political opponent, Republican Daniel Webster, “Taliban Dan.”

Originally Posted by SDW2001

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...an-dan-ad.html


Fortunately, the ad was condemned by members of both parties. Grayson is the guy who, during the healthcare "debate," said that he apologized to the "dead and the dying" for not getting healthcare rammed through already, and that the Republicans wanted sick people to "die quickly."

This ad backfired in stunning fashion. Dan Webster raised $70,000 since the ad's premiere last week. He has filed (or is considering filing) a slander suit.

What's wrong with the ad? Not just comparing Webster to a religious zealots bent on destroying the county, believe it or not. In the ad, Grayson takes a speech Webster gave where he talks about men picking bible verses to write down and live by. He specifically says "[don't pick ones dealing with wives submitting to husbands.]" But Grayson's ad flips that context completely, accusing Webster of wanting to stop women from divorcing abusive husbands, looping the "submit to me" Webster quote over and over. Just watch the ad.

The best part: After being nearly universally condemned for the ad, Grayson is sticking by the ad, claiming that Webster is associated with a group that opposes "women's rights!"

I can honestly say that 1) Grayson just guaranteed his defeat and 2) This is honestly the most disgusting and dishonest ad I've ever seen. I am not exaggerating. I cannot think of one that even comes close to essentially calling traitor who hates women and wants to impost radical fundamentalism on the United States.

Your thoughts?

That vision included instituting stoning as a form of capital punishment for rape, kidnapping, murder, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, “sodomy or homosexuality,” incest, striking a parent, extreme juvenile delinquency, and “unchastity before marriage.”

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

I think, in all seriousness, if you're going to argue that your moderate centre-left President is a "socialist" or "a Marxist", you don't get to fucking whine when someone calls one of your candidates running on a Tea Party conservative ticket a violent religious fundamentalist.

Originally Posted by BR

Count the times it has been used in recent memory by each party and I guarantee that you will find that the party of fear, distortion, and bullshit is overwhelmingly the Republican party.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Doubtful. I'm getting pretty regular mailings (daily) from Democratic candidates and the local Democratic party absolutely demonizing one particular republican or conservative candidate, often quoting things out of context and grossly mis-representing his positions and using general fear and demagoguery.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Can you provide specific examples, BR?

Originally Posted by segovius

Some immediate thoughts:

It does seem that this Webster has issues with women. And it seems he DOES have links with a chilling extremist group.

The group run by evangelist Bill Gothard is representative of the extremist Christian Reconstructionism movement.

This movement seems to believe in many motifs that ARE indistinguishable - or perhaps worse - than those of the Taleban. from the above link:



My bold...these are pure Taleban beliefs and here shown to be held by the Dominionist leaders Rushdoony, North and Bahnsen.

Webster himself is more aligned to Bill Gothard who admittedly fell out with Rushdoony the founder - btw, Rushdoony is a holocaust denier - but both men are in agreement on bring Biblical law to the US - in fact, Rushdoony is far MORE liberal than Webster's mentor!!!




Link

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Who do you think are scarier, Christians or Muslims? Great post by the way!

Originally Posted by segovius

Neither, I don't accept that the above are Christians or that terrorists who might want to kill me are Muslims.

Religion is about spirituality (or should be) and people developing themselves spiritually are no threat to anyone. Conversely, people who are threats are not spiritual.

But I suppose it depends on context. If I was in an Islamist attack - or at risk of one - then that would be scarier because my life would be at risk.

Having people empowered to enact oppressive legislation without being questioned because it is the 'western tradition' is also pretty scary in the long run and in a different way.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Do you think there are more extremist Christians than extremist Muslims?

Originally Posted by segovius

Don't know. Depends on how you define 'extremist' doesn't it?

I think there are probably more Islamic fundamentalists and literalists than Christian ones (I don't mean terrorists necessarily) - probably this is because Chrisianity is assimilated into Western democracies. Perhaps education has something to do with it too as Islamic States are often in third world environments. Also Christianity has a 500 year head start being older - Islam is where Christianity was 500 years ago and in 500 years time will be where Christianity is now.

Difficult to say these things though without giving ammo to the less-tolerant amongst us but there it is.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Thanks seg.

It seems there's a watering down of religion as time passes. Or maybe that's why we have religion, to water things down...so we act according to a rulebook rather than our own rules. Sorry if I've gone off topic a little, but it angers me that people follow religion in that way.

And by watering down in part I just mran "removed".

Originally Posted by segovius

Yes...it seems like that. But who knows? Hopefully humanity will evolve to a more enlightened state and maybe religion will evolve too...if it can't well...it shouldn't be kept going I guess.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

Alan Grayson generally is a good politician.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

Alan Grayson generally is a good politician. A lot of times he gets carried away with his big mouth.he has balls and sheer guts which truthfully Obama needs to win the voters in 2012.This time Grayson screwed up with this ad. It is not good on his part at all.