The Dominion of the Reconstruction

Christianist reconstruction, that is, recently restated as favored by Dear Leader himself and discussed by Chris Floyd and Glenn Greenwald. No matter what anyone else thinks.

Here's a few of their positions on moral issues- like slavery:

The bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible....

1. Obtaining slaves. Kidnapping is forbidden as a method of acquiring slaves, and deserves capital punishment (Exodus 21:16). Basically, there are only four legal ways to get slaves. They may be purchased (Leviticus 25:44-46), captured in war (Numbers 31:32-35; Deuteronomy 21:10-14), enslaved as punishment for theft (Exodus 22:1-3), or enslaved to pay off debts (Leviticus 25:39; Exodus 21:7). We should especially note God's merciful justice here. Heathen slaves who were purchased or captured in war were actually favored by this law, since It placed them in contact with believers. They received the relatively lenient treatment of the biblical slavery regulations, and they were also able to hear the liberating message of the gospel....

2. The care of slaves. Slaves have no economic incentive to work, since they cannot improve their situation regardless of how hard they labor. Therefore the master is allowed to provide that incentive by beating them (Exodus 21:20-27). Obviously, the slave is not regarded as having equal rights as a free man. But this very fact would keep a man from entering slavery too hastily. Slavery has certain benefits (job security, etc.), but it has serious drawbacks as well. Slavery was not allowed to become irresponsible welfare or paternalism. The law limited the master, however. If he murdered his slave, he was executed (Exodus 21:20). On the other hand, if the slave survived a beating and died a day or two later, there was no punishment (Exodus 21:21); there was no evidence that the master had actually intended to murder him. Again, this risk was a serious incentive against enslaving oneself. God did not want men to heedlessly abandon their freedom, and this law would tend to keep men working hard and living responsibly in order to avoid the threat of losing their liberty and civil rights. Relatively minor but permanent injuries (such as the loss of an eye or a tooth) resulted in the slave's freedom (Exodus 21:26-27). This was also an economic incentive to keep the master from hitting the slave in the face, since a heavy blow could mean the loss of his "investment." Naturally, this law protected slaves from severe mutilation.

Naturally.

Or freedom of religion:

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

Floyd isn't kidding.

...one of the Institute's most prominent board members is Howard Ahmanson Jr., the rightwing moneybags who for many years was the principal funder of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement. This movement, many of whose adherents and allies now have ready access to the corridors of power and exercise great influence on the formation of government policy, advocates the imposition of a totalitarian theocratic state, with every aspect of public and private life governed by a Sharia-like blanket of religious law. Some of the fearsome strictures openly championed by the Reconstructionists include slavery for the poor who fall into debt, execution – by stoning -- for homosexuals and other transgressors, revocation of citizenship for non-believers, and a worldwide jihad to exert God's dominion over the globe. Bush, of course, is very much at home with such lumpish, grunting, primitive minds; but one suspects that Churchill – much less Jefferson, Madison and Franklin -- would find a dinner with these cretins pretty heavy going...

The bloodthirsty baying of these servile ministers is the only voice that Bush attends to. Witness the "surge" in Iraq, launched in arrogant defiance not only of the will of the American people (neither party pays any attention to that) but also of a broad swathe of the Establishment elite, including the faction of Bush's own father. Instead, Bush turned to Frederick Kagan -- yet another well-wadded neocon courtier with absolutely no expertise in the Middle East, no knowledge of Iraq, no military experience, no qualifications at all save for his adherence to militarism, empire and the inherent greatness of George W. Bush. Bush will follow their lunatic agenda of "creative destruction" and imperial conquest to the end – because it is his agenda. Greenwald's conclusion is grim, but all too true:

"Irving Kristol [husband of luncheon attendee Gertrude Himmelfarb] has written in the past about the need to exploit religious and moral concepts in order to manipulate the masses, and his intellectual North Star, Leo Strauss, has advocated -- as Strauss scholar Shadia Drury documented -- that "those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit" -- a view Kristol has endorsed. One can see that dynamic powerfully at work in the interaction between these neoconservatives and the President. They have seized upon the President's evangelical fervor and equated his "calling" to wage war for Good in the world with the neoconservative agenda of endless wars in the Middle East.

And the more unpopular the President becomes as a result, the more of a failure these policies are, the more strongly they tell him to ignore all of that, that none of it matters, that his God and history will conclude that he did The Right Thing, provided that he continues steadfastly to pursue their agenda. And the President believes that..."

The Christianist TheoCons really believe Bu$hie when he says this kind of thing. When he says it, who knows, the old dry drunk may even believe it himself as much as he believes anything. It's doubtful Dear Leader's beliefs are much deeper or longer than his attention span.

It's a sure bet Cheney doesn't believe it. After all, Control is for Control's sake.

It's a sure bet Poppy doesn't believe it, and his Consigliere and the old guard are all on the record as being a little dismayed by the Decider's style. It's curious that the Clintons parrot exactly the same strategery to Pravda (but not her voter base) that the Saudi Royals and their Consigliere espouse.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military...

Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests...”

Sure, do it for the Oil and the Royals, blame it on the Jews in a left-handed way, make the rubes think you're doing it for the good of Israel, and inflame their zealots to support you, too. Triangulate like a snake.

The inattentive doubtless view her position, or the Fixer's, as moderation. Others would view it as protecting their investment. Naturally.