Informationsmarktverzerrung durch Fundamentalismus am Beispiel der USA

Kapitel 1: Einführung

1. Begriffe

von Margarete Payer

mailto: payer@payer.de

Zitierweise / cite as:

Payer, Margarete <1942 - >: Informationsmarktverzerrung durch Fundamentalismus am Beispiel der USA. -- Kapitel 1: Einführung. -- 1. Begriffe. -- Fassung vom 2008-03-17. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fundamentalismus011.htm

Erstmals publiziert: 2005-03-22

Überarbeitungen: 2008-03-17; 2005-07-07 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-06-16 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-05-27 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-05-09 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-15 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-13 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-11 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-09 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-08 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-06 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-04-01 [Ergänzungen];  2005-03-30 [Ergänzungen];  2005-03-28 [Ergänzungen]; 2005-03-24 [Ergänzungen]

Anlass: Lehrveranstaltung an der Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, Sommersemester 2005

Copyright: Dieser Text steht der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung. Eine Verwertung in Publikationen, die über übliche Zitate hinausgeht, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung des Verfassers.

Diese Inhalt ist unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz lizenziert.

Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung  Länder und Kulturen von Tüpfli's Global Village Library

0. Übersicht

• 1. Mottos des christlichen Fundamentalismus
• 2. Unholy Alliance
• 3. Fundamentalismus
• 4. Christlicher Fundamentalismus
• 5. Christian Right
• 6. Bible Belt
• 7. Southern Strategy
• 8. Evangelicals / Evangelikale
• 9. Neo-evangelicalism
• 10. Pentecostals / Pfingstbewegung
• 11. Confessing Movement / Bekenntnisbewegung
• 12. Born again / wiedergeboren
• 13. Dispensationalism
• 14. Covenant Theology / Föderaltheologie
• 15. Dominionism
• 16. Reconstructionism (Christian) / Wiederaufbaubewegung
• 17. Book of Revelation  / Offenbarung des Johannes / Apokalypse des Johannes
• 18. Danielbuch
• 19. Political Correctness (PC)
• 20. Secular Humanism
• 21. First Amendment
  • 21.1. Establishment Clause
  • 21.2. Free Exercise Clause
• 22. Republican Party (GOP)
• 23. Was ist mit dem katholischen Fundamentalismus, den Moonies und den Mormonen?

1. Mottos des christlichen Fundamentalismus

[Bildquelle von "Important election": Marsden, George M. <1939 - >: Fundamentalism and American culture : the shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870-1925. -- New York : Oxford University Press, 1980.  -- xiv, 306 S. : Ill. ; 24 cm.  -- ISBN 0195027582. -- S. 100. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

[Harold Lindsell zitiert in: Mojtabai, A. G. (Ann Grace) <1937 - : Blessèd assurance : at home with the bomb in Amarillo, Texas. -- 1st Syracuse University Press ed.  -- Syracuse, N.Y. : Syracuse University Press, 1997.  -- xvi, 255 S. ; 21 cm.  -- ISBN: 0815605080. -- Originally published: Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1986.  -- S. 118. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Nebenbei bemerkt:

"Bibel, ein ursprünglich griechisches Wort, bedeutet eigentlich die innere, biegsame Rinde der Bäume. Da man nun in den frühesten Zeiten sich dieser Rinde statt des Papiers bediente, so brauchte man das Wort auch für Buch überhaupt. Als sich das Christentum weiter verbreitete und einige Lehrer desselben einzelne, teils geschichtliche, teils belehrende Schriften für die Bekenner der Christuslehre niedergeschrieben hatten, welche später gesammelt wurden, nannte man diese Sammlung Biblia, die Bücher, oder das Buch der Bücher, und weil sie die Christen als die Quelle ihrer Religion verehren, die heilige Schrift. Ein großer Teil der Bücher, welche die Bibel enthält, diente den Juden schon vor Christi Geburt als Erkenntnisquelle ihres Gesetzes und ihrer Religion (das Gesetz und die Propheten), und man nennt sie daher das alte Testament, die Bücher des alten Bundes. Man dachte sich nämlich, es habe Gott einen Bund mit den Menschen geschlossen und die Urkunde dieses Bundes - das Testament - sei in diesen Schriften niedergelegt worden. Da nun dieser Bund als durch das Christentum gleichsam erneuert zu denken ist, so nannte man die Schriften, welche die Christen als die Urquellen ihrer Religion verehren, das neue Testament, die Schriften des neuen, durch Christum erneuten Bundes Und so ist die Bibel das Buch der Welt; sie ist in tausend Sprachen übersetzt, in Millionen Exemplaren verteilt, selbst eine Weltsprache geworden, die zu den Gläubigen aller Zonen, aller Farben, aller Zeiten spricht. Ihre erhabene, gottentstammte Weisheit redet zu dem Hindu am Ganges, wie zu dem Indianer in Kanada, zu dem Samojeden, wie zu dem Neger am Senegal, zu dem Chinesen, wie zu dem Feuerländer in gleich verständlicher, gleich erhebender, Licht und Menschlichkeit, Weisheit und Unsterblichkeit verbreitender Weise. Sie ist die erhabene Memnonsäule, aufgestellt in Mitten der Welt, und von ihr aus erklingen heilige Glockentöne über den Erdkreis, die in den Herzen der Gläubigen wiederklingen und sie zum Gebet, zur Demut vor dem Einzigen, Allmächtigen, Unendlichen mahnen, und sie Alle in der reinsten Liebe durchdringen. Allen - Allen verkündet sie mit Feuerzungen die erhabenen Offenbarungen der Gottheit, des göttlichen Erlösers und seiner Apostel heilige Lehren, den Triumph des Himmels über die Hölle, die reinste, heiligste Liebe. Sie ist das ewige Palladium der Christenheit, die Oriflamme der Menschheit, um die sich einst Alle versammeln werden in brünstiger Andacht und Liebe, wo es nur »Einen Hirten und Eine Herde« geben wird." [Quelle: Damen-Conversations-Lexikon  / hrsg. von Carl Herloßsohn. -- Neusatz und Faks. der 10-bd. Ausg. Leipzig, 1834 - 1838. -- Berlin : Directmedia Publ.. -- 2005. -- 1 CD-ROM. -- (Digitale Bibliothek ; 118). -- ISBN: 3-89853-518-5. -- s.v. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie diese CD-ROM bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Ein bisschen Statistik von der Barna Gruppe, um zeigen, wie zunehmend wichtig die Bibel für die amerikanische Gesellschaft ist:

• Im Jahr 2006 gingen 48% aller Erwachsenen in den USA davon aus, dass die Bibel völlig irrtumslos ist (1991 waren es erst 35%)
• nur 12 % der wiedergeborenen Christen stimmen der These der völligen Irrtumslosigkeit nicht zu
• unter den Republikanern glauben 78 %  und unter den Demokraten 69% an die Irrtumslosigkeit der Bibel. ( Im Jahr 2004 waren es 72 % bzw. 64%.)
• während einer durchschnittlichen Woche haben 47% der Amerikaner in der Bibel gelesen (1988 waren es 36%)
• mehr Protestanten als Katholiken lesen regelmäßig die Bibel
• die Afro-Amerikaner sind die eifrigsten Bibelleser, es folgen die Weißen , dann die Latino-Amerikaner und Amerikaner asiatischer Herkunft

[Quelle: The Bible. - 2007. -   http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=7. -- Zugriff am 2008-03-13]

2. Unholy Alliance

Der Begriff Unholy Alliance (Unheilige Allianz) geht zurück auf den Begriff Heilige Allianz, der Koalition, die 1815 zwischen Russland, Österreich und Preußen und weiterer europäischer Länder gegründet wurde. Die moderne sogenannte Unheilige Allianz in den USA bezieht sich auf politische Bündnisse zwischen Gruppen unterschiedlicher kultureller und religiöser Ideen, praktisch eine Verbindung zwischen der reichen Oberschicht und Evangelikalen bzw. vor allem unter der Präsidentschaft von George W. Bush mit dem rechtsgerichteten Flügel des christlichen Fundamentalismus.

In der Republikanischen Partei geht es um eine Vermischung von Kirche und Staat in Richtung einer kapitalistischen Theokratie. Bush erfüllt einige Punkte, die die Evangelikalen von ihm erwarten, wie z.B. der Kampf gegen die Abtreibung, gegen Homosexualität, Zurücknahme der sozialen Aufgaben des Staates, aber er übergeht die Opposition des National Council of Churches und der Katholischen Bischofskonferenz in den USA gegen den Irakkrieg. Auch lehnt er die Forderung einer Reihe führender christlicher Prominente nach einer qualitätsvollen Gesundheitsversorgung, nach Unterkünften und Lebensunterhalt für die Armen ab. Stattdessen schützt er die Öl- und Energie-Industrie vor dem Kyoto Protokoll,  vermindert die Steuern für die Reichen und die Firmen, streicht die Gelder für Kondome, die z.B. in Afrika zur Bekämpfung von Aids eingesetzt wurden.

[vgl.: Kaplan, Esther: With God on their side : how Christian fundamentalists trampled science, policy, and democracy in George W. Bush´s White House. - New York [u.a.] : The New Press, 2004. - XII, 322 S. - ISBN 1-56584-920-5. - S. 2ff.]

Historisch geht die Unholy Alliance auf die Southern Strategy zurück (vgl. unter "Southern Strategy")

"In this article Unholy Alliance refers to the political union of industrialists and management aristocrats with middle class and disadvantaged Evangelical Christians. Motivation The wealthy take advantage of the financial Lorenz curve that is an inherent quality of capitalist systems. This means that 1% of the population owns 10%, 20%, or more of the wealth in the country, while 50% own 30%, 20%, or even less. In a democracy with elements of majoritarian rule, it is easy to see that the wealthy would quickly be stripped of their wealth or forced to flee if they didn't have some means of striking an alliance with significant portions of the disadvantaged in that country. In response, various schemes to win the favor of the voting masses have been explored over the centuries that democracy has returned as a system of governance. History of the Unholy Alliance The current approach used by many of the wealthy, supporters of the Republican Party, is to blend church and state into a capitalist theocracy. [...] Political Utility The Christian Right is a relatively non-volatile group politically, in that they are individuals unlikely to switch parties or platforms. They have been waiting for the return of their messiah for millenia, and can easily continue to wait while various upper-class politicians promise them an overturn of Roe and throw them the occasional steak, such as the ban on "Partial-birth abortion." A self-selected group of evangelicals for whom faith is a constant presence in their lives, ideological gadgetry such as Faith-based Economics that would be sniffed out and rejected by more skeptical groups are effective as means of mind control. The pervasive need for group membership and approval in this demographic renders them malleable and easy to keep in line. While the Unholy Alliance has eroded long-held separations of church and state, even invoking the largely agnostic Founding Fathers that established the separation in their arguments, it is unlikely their conjugation with the self-infatuated wealthy would be sustainable without additional impetus. This was found, conveniently, in the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Since the attackers were devout Muslims, the prospect of a return to the Crusades through holy war was raised. And since the then-current political dynasty (the Bush family) had its financial interests in the oil industry--largely controlled by Muslim governments--the Unholy Alliance was given new legs by the coincedence. [Quelle: Unholy Alliance. - In: dkosopedia. -  http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Unholy_Alliance. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06]

3. Fundamentalismus

Abb.: Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind
[Quellle: ©http://www.northernsun.com/cgi-bin/ns/scan/fi=products/sf=prod_group/se=Religion::Spirituality.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

4. Christlicher Fundamentalismus

Abb.: Einbandtitel

"Lernen Sie, wie man die Absurdität der Evolution zeigen kann. Studiere Sie, wie Sie Ihren Glauben mit Ihrer Familie und an Ihrem Arbeitsplatz teilen können Lernen Sie, wie man gegenüber einem Atheisten Zeugnis ablegt. Sehen Sie aus der Schrift, wie man Gottes Existenz ohne Gebrauch des Glaubens beweisen kann. Entdecken Sie, wie man die Authentizität der Bibel durch Prophezeiung beweisen kann. Sehen Sie, wie voll die Bibel von Augen öffnenden wissenschaftlichen und medizinischen Fakten ist. Lesen Sie faszinierende Zitate von Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Stephen Hawking, und vielen anderen sehr bekannten Wissenschaftlern. Lesen Sie angsterfüllten letzten Worte berühmter Leute, die ohne den Erlöser starben. Lernen Sie, wie man die "Widersprüche" in der Bibel widerlegt. Studieren Sie, wie man mit einem Mormonen, einem Zeugen Jehavas, einem Buddhisten, einem Hindu und einem Muslim spricht. Finden Sie raus, warum die Rollen vom Toten Meer für die Bibel relevant sind. Lesen Sie die unglaublichen Zitate über die Bibel von Präsidenten und anderen berühmten Leuten. Entdecken Sie, wie man Fragen beantwortet, wie "Woher bekam Kain seine Frau? Warum gibt es Leiden? Warum sind die Dinosaurier verschwunden? und viele mehr." [Quelle: The evidence bible : irrefutable evidence for the thinking mind /  Kirk Cameron ; Ray Comfort. -- Gainesville, FL : Bridge-Logos, ©2003. -- 1716 S. : Ill. -- ISBN 0-88270-905-4. -- Rückseite des Einbands ins Deutsche übers. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Das Kirchenlied "The Bible stands like a rock" (1917) von Haldor Lillenas (1885 - 1959) zeigt die Einstellung christlicher Fundamentalisten zu ihrem Fundament, der Bibel:

[Quelle der midi-Datei: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/i/bibstand.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

Die Anfänge des Fundamentalismus gehen auf die 70er Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts zurück, als einige Protestanten in den USA den christlichen Glauben durch den Darwinismus bedroht sahen. Es wurde daraus eine Bewegung gegen den theologischen Liberalismus und die moderne Wissenschaft mit ihrer Lehre von der Evolution, also eine Reaktion gegen eine wirkliche oder eine vermutete Gefährdung des eigenen Glaubens. Die fünf wichtigsten (also fundamentalen) Punkte der Bewegung sind:

1. Irrtumslosigkeit der Bibel

2. Jungfrauengeburt

3. stellvertretendes Sühneopfer

4. die leibliche Auferstehung der Toten bei Jesu Wiederkunft

5. Wiederkunft Christi (vgl. unter Dispensationalism)

Diese Punkte wurden - wie oben unter Fundamentalismus schon erwähnt - in einer Schriftenreihe mit dem Titel "The fundamentals : a testimony to the Truth", hrsg. von A. C. Dixon und R. A. Torrey in den Jahren 1910-12 vertieft und trugen zur Verbreitung fundamentalistischer Ideen bei.

Innerhalb der protestantischen Kirchen in den USA gab es heiße Auseinandersetzungen, wobei es dabei um die Inhalte von Unterrichtsmaterial, die Rechtgläubigkeit der theologischen Fakultäten, die Besetzung von Missionsausschüssen und die Verwendung von Gelder ging. Es entstanden sehr viele sich bekämpfende kleine Gruppierungen. Heftige Auseinandersetzungen gab und gibt es z.B. wegen der Frauenordination bzw. der kürzlichen Einsetzung eines homosexuellen Bischofs in einer anglikanischen Kirche (zur Zeit besteht die Möglichkeit, dass sich die Anglikaner weltweit teilen. Vor allem die afrikanischen anglikanischen Kirchen verdammen Homosexualität.)

Während man sich am Anfang eher von der politischen Welt fern gehalten hat, kann man später von  Perioden mit starken politischen Aktivitäten sprechen. In den 20er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts begann man auf der einen Seite für das Alkoholverbot und gegen katholische Einwanderer (Polen und Iren unterstellte man hohe Alkoholbenutzung) zu kämpfen und auf der anderen Seite vor allem in der Schulpolitik gegen den Darwinismus (Scope´s Monkey Trial - "Affenprozess": eine Anklage gegen einen Lehrer, der in seiner Schulklasse von der Evolution gesprochen hat und verurteilt wurde). In den 50er Jahren kämpfte man gegen den Kommunismus, es bildete sich eine Gruppe Christian Anticommunist Crusade, die sich mit der John Birch Society (einer katholischen Organisation) zusammen tat.

vgl.: Ahlstrom, S. E.: Fundamentalismus. - In: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. - 3. Aufl. - 1958. - 2. Band, S. 1178f.

Seit spätestens 1980 sind die politischen Aktivitäten der Fundamentalisten wesentlich stärker und umfassender geworden: es geht um den Kampf gegen die Abtreibungsgesetze (Roe v. Wade, eine Gerichtsentscheidung, durch die Abtreibung im allgemeinen erlaubt wurde), den Kampf gegen die Gleichberechtigung von Homosexuellen (insbesondere gegen gleichgeschlechtliche Eheschließungen), den Kampf gegen die Lehre von der Evolution (Kreationismus bzw. Intelligent design gegen die Evolutionslehre, Biologiebücher in Georgia mussten noch 2004 mit einem Aufkleber versehen werden, der betonte, dass die Lehre von der Evolution fraglich ist), den Einfluss auf die Schulen (bzw. der Kampf um das Recht der Eltern ihre Kinder zu Hause zu unterrichten, um die Kinder vor dem schlechten Einfluss der öffentlichen Schule zu schützen), das Verbieten von Verhütungsmitteln (z.B. trotz der AIDS-Gefahr in der Zusammenarbeit mit Afrika) u.ä. Man versucht und erreicht es auch, entsprechenden Einfluss auf Politik und Rechtsprechung zu nehmen. Man unterstützt die Präsidentschaftskandidaten, von denen man annimmt, dass sie fundamentalistische Ideen vertreten. Dazu gehören Jimmy Carter,  Ronald Reagan und George W. Bush. Man beteiligt sich an Organisationen wie der Moral Majority oder der Christian Coalition.

Obwohl es heute sehr viele sich durchaus auch bekämpfende fundamentalistische Bewegungen und Organisationen gibt, kann man als gemeinsame Kennzeichen folgendes angeben:

• der Glaube an die Bibel als unfehlbar, historisch richtig und hilfreich in allen Lebenslagen, eine auslegende Autorität ist nicht nötig (z.B. die "Flutgeologie": u.a. das Entstehen des Grand Canyon als Folge der Sintflut; Festhalten an den jeweiligen Nennungen von biblischen Autoren: u.a. Moses als Autor der fünf Bücher Mose)

• der Glaube an die baldige Wiederkunft Christi (die Betonung des Buches Daniel und der Apokalypse des Johannes)

• strikte traditionelle Moralvorstellungen und Sündenauffassung (Kampf gegen Homosexuelle)

• Glaube an die Existenz des Satans

• Intoleranz, die bis zur Militanz führen kann

Abb.: Feindbild der christlichen Fundamentalisten: die "liberalen, modernistischen" Kirchen: Cleveland Moffett's [Romanautor (1863-1926)] ideal church. -- In: The King's Business. -- 1919-05. -- S. 396

[Bildquelle : Marsden, George M. <1939 - >: Fundamentalism and American culture : the shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870-1925. -- New York : Oxford University Press, 1980.  -- xiv, 306 S. : Ill. ; 24 cm.  -- ISBN 0195027582. -- S. 157. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Im Folgenden geht es um die Autorität der Bibel aus evangelikaler Sicht:

Abb.: Autorität der Bibel [Bildquelle: http://www.buildingequality.us/ifas/library/militia/1-1.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-13]   "Bible, Authority of the. The central question that runs through the Bible is that of the authority of God. His authority is majestically displayed : in Genesis 1, where the words "and God said'' puncture the darkness of chaos and speak the cosmos into being. It is supremely challenged by a creature of his own making in Genesis 3: "Yea, hath God said . . . ?" asks the serpent of the woman (3:1 kjv), and the question reverberates down through the centuries that follow, all the way to the Book of Revelation, where the Almighty God "hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, king of kings and lord of lords," and "death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death," as the Lord God Omnipotent's reign is eschatologically established and every challenge to his authority destroyed (19:16; 20:14 kjv). This is the theological context for the question of the authority of the Bible, because as God's written ("inscripturated") revelation its authority is the authority of God; for what Scripture says, God says. The serpent's question in Genesis 3 is not simply the most striking example of a challenge to the authority of God; it is the fruit of the challenge of Lucifer who as the devil stands behind, or within, the serpent. And it is the challenge that leads Eve, and then Adam, into their definitive act of rebellion. It should be noted that the serpent's challenge "Hath God said?" is, in particular, a challenge to the authority of the word of God, a claim to know better than the word that God has spoken. This focus in the original act of sin on challenge to the authority of God in his word underlines from the outset the closeness of the connection between the person and the word of a God who is characterized as God who speaks. "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate it. ... Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this you have done? " (3:6, 13). The consequences are extraordinary. So it is vital to understand that this doctrine, far from playing a minor role on the fringes of Christian belief, brings us face to face with the authority of God himself. What is at stake in the authority of Holy Scripture is the authority of its divine author. And, in light of the fact that every doctrine believed by the church is in turn authorized by appeal to Holy Scripture (theological proposals are grounded "according to the Scriptures," in the words of the creed), it is no exaggeration to say that the entire structure of Christian theology stands or falls by the authority of Scripture, the major premise for every theological statement that would claim the allegiance of the canonical community that is the church of Jesus Christ. This is still widely admitted in contemporary theological discussion, both implicitly (for every theologian, orthodox or not, quotes Scripture to bolster theological argument), and sometimes in so many words. That immensely significant fact offers the context for the realization that the doctrine of the authority of the Bible is, uniquely, reflective in character. That is, though its subject is the Bible, it is a biblical doctrine like other biblical doctrines. Yet unlike other matters of Christian belief and practice on which the Bible speaks—Christology, eschatology, the nature of God, the Christian life—we are here concerned with what the Bible says about itself. It is sometimes suggested that this invalidates the Bible's testimony to its own authority, through it is a matter of logic that the highest authority must be its own authority. If the Bible is the "supreme rule of faith and life," none can be higher. Moreover, the Bible's self-testimony is pluriform and, in turn, sustained by the testimony of others; especially, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Let us briefly review-each of these factors, because they have special relevance to the significance of the reflexive character of the doctrine. First, the pluriform character of the Bible's self-testimony. As we shall shortly be reminded, what we find in Holy Scripture is not some bald claim to raw authority but a collation of many testimonies on behalf of Holy Scripture as a book. The canonical claim takes the form of interlocking claims and evidences that include the phenomena of the divine speech, the particular testimony of Jesus Christ to the character of what we call the Old Testament, and the authoritative use of canonical books by the writers of others. Second, the Bible's testimony is sustained by the use of the Bible in the church, as its authority has been recognized and found to be effective for the definition of doctrine and ethics, the public preaching of the gospel, and private devotion. Third, the chief ground of the believer's and the church's confidence in the authority of Holy Scripture lies in the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the Christian. That is to say, though the Scripture seems to be self-attesting, it is the divine author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit of God, who inspired the writing of that same Scripture, who is its final witness. He assures the believer that this canonical Scripture is verily the word of God written. That is, God offers his own witness to his word. Yet the authority of Scripture is also a biblical doctrine like any other. It is the plainest of all biblical teachings, assumed as the starting point of the Bible in its role as a teaching book just as it has been assumed as the major premise of every use of the Bible since, lying behind the very possibility of biblical theology. Among the theological disciplines, "Bibliology" is both prolegomenon, part of the prelude to theology proper, and one among the articles that follow. The Biblical Testimony. Perhaps the most striking, if often least noticed, testimony is the sustained interweaving of the direct speech of God in the text of the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. While serving as chief illustration and paradigm of revelation, the direct speech of the Creator-Redeemer resonates throughout the Scriptures and imparts its own stamp of authority to those books in which it is found. It is thus that the Book of Genesis begins with a chapter-long listing of the creative words of God, "And God said. ..." Chapters 2 and 3 narrate the interlocution of the Lord God and Adam and Eve in the garden. In chapter 4 the Lord engages Cain in interrogation, and curse, and finally grace. And the pattern continues through the flood and the covenant with Noah, and into the call of Abra(ha)m and the long account of the patriarchal discipleship (and the later historical books). In Exodus this narrative leads to the giving of the law on Sinai, and alongside the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, we read the mass of first-person instruction that became the basis of the civil and ceremonial practice of the Hebrews. The prophetic books, of course, consist in large measure of discourse from the mouth of God. As we later read, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways" (Heb. 1:1). In the New Testament there is some similarity, especially in the Book of Revelation, which repeatedly records the words of God. But there is also a fundamental difference: On page after page of the four Gospels, the incarnate Son of God speaks in human flesh the words of God. "In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb. 1:2). As is so apparent in a red-letter testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record the very words of Jesus in an extensive fashion. Of course, it is possible to conclude that such claims to divine authority in particular portions of Holy Scripture need not extend to the whole. A general regard for the trustworthiness of Scripture is all that is needed to sustain the divine authority of sayings placed in the mouth of God. Indeed, is not the implication of "Thus says the Lord" that those other sayings recorded by the prophet fall short of divine authority? Should not the quoted speech of Jesus of Nazareth be taken to have an authority to which the letters of Saul of Tarsus could never aspire? As it happens, the Scriptures themselves tell another story. For the teaching of Jesus Christ extends to the question of bibliology. This is evident in all four Gospels, and the evidence is overwhelming. In John 10:34 we read that Jesus said "The Scripture cannot be broken." In Mark 12:36, of Psalm 110, he states that David is speaking by the Holy Spirit. One of the most significant of all the many New Testament uses of the Old is found in Matthew 19. We read: "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?' 'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"?'" (4-5). The importance of this reference lies in the fact that in Genesis 2:24, where we find this statement about leaving parents to become one flesh with a wife, the comment is simply attributed to the narrator. It is Jesus who puts it into the mouth of the one who "made them male and female." And the implication is strong: that what Scripture says, God says, whether Scripture places it in the divine speech or as narration and commentary. The second thread of internal testimony within Scripture may be traced through apostolic use of other canonical books. There is of course extensive New Testament use of the Old in a manner consonant with that which we find in the teaching of Jesus. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we find this principle carried through into the New Testament Scriptures themselves, as the writings of the apostle Paul are placed on a level with Holy Scripture: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." The Use of Scripture in the Church. The central place of Holy Scripture in the life and history of the church in every age offers telling evidence of its authority. We do not believe its authority stems from the teaching of the church. But we note the authority which Scripture has, from the start, exercised in all the churches, as believers in the first century and the twentieth have done homage to the written Word of God as rule for their minds, their hearts, and their lives. Here we unite the devotional and doctrinal use of Scripture, its place in preaching, private reading, the great doctrinal controversies, and the anguish of the believer persecuted or bereft who turns to the Word of God for comfort from God himself. It is through Scripture that God has ruled the mind and heart of the church and the Christian. The Testimony of the Holy Spirit. Central to Christian confidence in the authority of Scripture lies the conviction that behind every argument and experience that lead the believer to trust the Bible there is another witness to be discerned; that of God the Holy Spirit, himself inspirer and interpreter of Scripture, as he testifies to that Word of God. We have noted that it is not possible for a supreme authority to find final testimony in anything lesser. So it is in God only that Scripture can be attested. As Calvin puts it, "For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is scaled by the inward testimony of the Spirit. That same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded" (Inst. 1.7.4). The near-universal acceptance of biblical authority in the church, liberal and conservative alike, is not coincidental. It draws our attention to the character of the church of Jesus Christ as a canonical community—the people of the book. Yet one implication of this wide assumption that theology should be done "according to the Scriptures" is that the tail comes to wag the dog; because it is necessary to justify theological proposals with reference to Scripture, persons of all theological persuasions seek to find some way to connect their conclusions, on whatever ground they may have been reached, with Scripture. This has led to growing uncertainty about what it means to say that the Bible has authority. To what does that authority extend? Several points of focus have emerged in this discussion. The task of contextualizing the teaching of Holy Scripture in the cultures of every century has demanded the best scholars and exegetes at the disposal of the church. It also raises the question of the extent of biblical authority. Does it indeed extend to the Pauline condemnation of homosexuality? Growing disagreement among evangelicals has focused on issues of hermeneutics, and the nature of authoritative inspiration— whether it implies inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is widely accepted as a consensus statement of the biblical position, and begins with an affirmation that "recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority." That is to say, acknowledgment of the authority of Holy Scripture is no mere pro forma indication of respect, but involves confidence in its inerrancy. "The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith." The heart of the confession that follows is found in this paragraph: "Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises." [Quelle: Nigel M. de S. Cameron. -- In: Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology / edited by Walter A. Elwell.  -- Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books ; Carlisle, Cumbria : Paternoster Press, ©1996.  -- x, 933 S. ; 26 cm.  -- ISBN: 0801020492. -- s.v. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

5. Christian Right

Abb.: The Christian right is neither [Christian nor right]
[Quellle: ©http://www.northernsun.com/cgi-bin/ns/scan/fi=products/sf=prod_group/se=Religion::Spirituality.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

Christian Right ist der Begriff, unter dem man mehrere politische und religiöse Bewegungen zusammenfasst, die streng konservative und rechtslastige Ansichten vertreten. Es gehören Fundamentalisten, Evangelikale, Pfingstler, konservative Protestanten aus den Hauptkirchen und Katholiken dazu, es gibt aber auch Verbindungen zu Anhängern des Dominionism und des Christian Reconstructivism. Sie sind überwiegend Anhänger der Republikanischen Partei, was besonders bei der Unterstützung der Wahlen zur Präsidentschaft von Ronald Reagan und George W. Bush zu sehen war.

Historisch gesehen hat die Christliche Rechte  sich eingesetzt für Alkoholverbot, zivile Rechte wie die Sklavenbefreiung, soziale Aktivitäten gegen Armut. In den südlichen Gruppen praktizierte man die Rassentrennung.

Die Ziele der neuen Christlichen Rechte sind u.a.:

• Widerruf erlaubter Abtreibung
• Einschränkung in der Anwendung von Bio-Technologie: keine menschlichen Klone, keine Stammzellforschung mit menschlichen Embryonen
• Widerruf der Rechte von Homosexuellen, Festhalten an traditionellen Werten der Familie
• Unterstützung religiöser Bräuche im zivilen Leben, insbesondere das Schulgebet
• Opposition gegen Gerichtsentscheide, die die Trennung von Staat und Kirche vertiefen
• Verteidigung von häuslichem Schulunterricht und Privatschulen, insbesondere das Verteilen von Vouchers, damit die Eltern selbst unterrichten - insbesondere den Kreationismus
• Einstehen für traditionelle moralische Werte: Schutz der Kinder vor Büchern, Filmen, Fernsehprogrammen usw., die vor allem sexuell unmoralisch sind (Einsatz von Filterprogrammen bzw. Boykott-Kampagnen gegen  Fernsehsender, die den moralischen Werten nicht entsprechen; Verbrennungs-Kampagnen von Büchern)
• Unterstützung Israels wegen der biblischen Prophezeiungen (Lehre des Premillennial Dispensationalism), (daraus entstand die Bewegung des Christlichen Zionismus und z.B. die Forderung, man solle alle Palästinenser in umliegende Länder aussiedeln)
• Unterstützung von militärischen Aktionen der US-Armee vor allem im "Krieg gegen den Terror" in Afghanistan und Irak

[Quelle:  Conservative Christians. - In: Wikipedia. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christians. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-02]

Zur christlichen Rechte gehört die Bewegung Moral Majority, die 1979 unter der Führung vom Teleevangelisten Jerry Falwell gegründet wurde, um vor allem politisch die religiösen Ansichten zu vertreten. Man wollte eine neue rechte Mehrheit aufbauen, um ein Gegengewicht zum moralischen und sozialen Liberalismus zu erhalten. Um politisch schlagkräftiger zu werden, verbündeten sich die Fundamentalisten der Gruppe (Falwell, LaHaye, Dixon und Bob Billington) mit dem Juden Paul Weyrich und den Katholiken Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie und Phyllis Schlafly.

Die Ziele der Moral Majority entsprechen denen der Christlichen Rechte, wobei auffallend viel Gewicht auf die Sexualität gelegt wird: man richtet sich insbesondere gegen die Frauenbewegung, die man Grund alles Übels ansieht. Christinnen wird empfohlen, ihren Männer wieder zu gehorchen und nach traditionellen Werten zu leben. Man fordert echte Männer, weshalb man auch u.a. Widerstand gegen das Vorhaben das Recht auf Waffen einzuschränken leistet.

[vgl.: Armstrong, Karen: Im Kampf für Gott : Fundamentalismus in Christentum, Judentum und Islam. - München : Siedler, 2004. - 608 S. -- Einheitssacht.: The battle for God <dt.>. -- ISBN 3-88680-769-X. - S. 432ff.

Eine gute Beschreibung der extremen Richtungen in der Christlichen Rechte gibt folgender Text:

"Conspiracy theorizing about the Christian Right's supposedly "secret" agenda involves highlighting the hate-mongering and bizarre ideas of a handful of Christian Right players while neglecting the broad popularity of dominion theology. There are a variety of ideological tendencies within the Christian Right. At the truly extreme end of the spectrum is a set of ideas proponents call Reconstructionism, associated with only a small number of think tanks and book publishers. Many Christian Right activists have never even heard of Reconstructionism, whose advocates call for the imposition of an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with capital punishment for offenses including adultery, homosexuality and blasphemy.

Sects and Schisms

More prevalent on the Christian Right is the dominionist idea, shared by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns—and there is no consensus on when that might be. Dominionist thinking precludes coalitions between believers and unbelievers, which is why many Christian rightists will have a hard time compromising with some of the very same Republicans they recently helped elect.

Abb.: Francis Schaeffer (1912 - 1984)
[Bildquelle: http://www.newgenevacenter.org/reference/20b-theology2.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09]

The idea of taking dominion over secular society gained widespread currency with the 1981 publication of evangelical philosopher Francis Schaeffer's book A Christian Manifesto. The book sold 290,000 copies in its first year, and it remains one of the movement's most frequently cited texts. Schaeffer, who died of cancer in 1984, was a product of the internecine conflicts that split the Presbyterian church during the 1930s and 1940s. Schaeffer allied himself with the strident anticommunist leader Rev. Carl Mclntire who headed the fundamentalist American Council of Christian Churches. Later Schaeffer joined an anti-Mclntire faction that, after several name changes, merged into the Presbyterian Church in America. (A related denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is the milieu out of which convicted killer Paul Hill developed his justifications for killing abortionists.) In the 1960s and 1970s, Schaeffer and his wife Edith ran a retreat center in Switzerland, where young American "Jesus freaks" came to study the Bible with Schaeffer and learn how to apply his dominion theology to the political scene back home.

In A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer's argument is simple. The United States began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. But as society became more pluralistic, with each new wave of immigrants, proponents of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate debate on policy issues. Since humanists place human progress, not God, at the center of their considerations, they pushed American culture in all manner of ungodly directions, the most visible results of which included legalized abortion and the secularization of the public schools. At the end of A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer called for Christians to use civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality, which explains Schaeffer's popularity with groups like Operation Rescue. Randall Terry has credited Schaeffer as a major influence in his life.

Abb.: Jay Grimstead
[Bildquelle: http://www.reformation.net/cor/jaybio.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09]

In the 1980s, some of the younger men Schaeffer had influenced joined a group called the Coalition on Revival (COR) [Webpräsenz: http://www.reformation.net/. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09] , founded by Jay Grimstead. Grimstead, a veteran of the old Young Life missionary group, had decided that evangelicals were insufficiently literalist in their reading of the Bible. Grimstead founded COR with two purposes. One was to unify pastors who differed on questions of "eschatology," which is the study of the end-times and the question of when Christ will return. Most evangelicals have held the pre-millennialist belief that Christ will return before a 1,000 year reign by believers. Grimstead and others in COR are post-millennialists who believe their job is establish the kingdom of God on earth now; Christ will return only after Christians have been in charge for 1,000 years. COR's second purpose, consistent with post-millennialism, was the development of position papers, called "world view documents," on how to apply dominion theology to Christian Right activism in more than a dozen spheres of social life, including education, economics, law and even entertainment.

Much of the liberal writing on dominion theology and Reconstructionism has focused on COR as headquarters for a conspiracy to take over society. Grimstead and his colleagues advocated running stealth candidates in selected counties as early as 1986. But in recent years, COR has served as little more than a clearinghouse for Grimstead's position papers. As an organization, COR is largely inactive. Like the Moral Majority of the early 1980s, COR was a network of pastors, each of whom is busy with his own projects.

If COR had any effect, though, it was in reinforcing ideas about taking dominion. The 100 or so movement leaders in COR each signed a "covenant" statement affirming their commitment to the idea that Christians should take dominion over all fields of secular society. Only a few of COR's steering committee members were hard core Reconstructionists. Most of the Reconstructionists are too hair-splittingly sectarian to want to associate with COR's diverse crew of pentecostal-charismatics and fundamental Baptists.

The Reconstructionists are theologically committed to Calvinism. They shy away from the Baptists' loud preaching and the pentecostals' wild practices of speaking in tongues, healing and delivering prophecies. To secular readers, the minutiae of who believes what—or which group of characters likes to dance on one foot—might seem trivial. But some of the details and divisions of Christian Right theology are politically relevant.

As Above, So Below

 

Abb.: R.J. Rushdoony (1916 - 2001)

Reconstructionism is the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology. Its leading proponent has been Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, an obscure figure within the Christian Right. Born in 1916, the son of Armenian immigrants to the U.S., Rushdoony looks like an Old Testament patriarch with his white hair and beard and penetrating eyes. At a young age Rushdoony was strongly influenced by Westminster Theological Seminary professor Cornelius Van Til, a Dutch theo-logican who emphasized the inerrant authority of the Bible and the irreconcilability between believers and unbelievers. A recent issue of Rushdoony's monthly Chalcedon Report noted his Armenian background. Since the year 320, every generation of the Rushdoony family has produced a Christian priest or minister. "There was Armenian royalty in the Rushdoony blood, and a heritage of defending the faith, often by sword and gun, against Godless foes bent on destroying a people of faith and works."

Abb.: Gary North
[Bildquelle: http://www.nndb.com/people/892/000058718/. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09]

With that auspicious heritage, Rushdoony founded the Chalcedon Foundation in California in the mid-1960s. One of the Foundation's early associates was Gary North who eventually married Rushdoony's daughter. North had been active within secular libertarian and anticommunist organizations, particularly those with an anti-statist bent.

Rushdoony and North had a falling out and ceased collaboration years ago. North started his own think tank, the Institute for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas. Rushdoony, North and about a half dozen other Reconstructionist writers have published countless books and journals advocating postmillennialism and "theonomy" or the application of God's law to all spheres of everyday life. In his rhetorical crusades against secular humanists and against most other Christians, North is fond of saying "You can't beat something with nothing."

North has geared his writing for popular audiences; some of his books are available in Christian book stores. Rushdoony's writing is more turgid and also more controversial. It was Rushdoony's seminal 1973 tome The Institutes of Biblical Law that articulated Reconstructionists' vision of a theocracy in which Old Testament law would be reinstated in modern society. Old Testament law classified a wide range of sins as punishable by death; these included not only murder and rape but also adultery, incest, homosexuality, witchcraft, incorrigible delinquency by youth and even blasphemy. In the Reconstructionists' vision of a millennial or "kingdom" society, there would be only local governments; there would be no central administrative state to collect property taxes, nor to provide education or other welfare services.

Aside from Rushdoony and North, Reconstructionism boasts only a few other prolific writers. These include Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Rev. Joseph Morecraft, David Chilton, Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry, none of whom are major figures within the Christian Right. They are quoted more often in liberal reports than in the Christian Right's own literature.

The unabashed advocacy of a Christian theocracy has insured a limited following for the most explicit of the Reconstructionists, who have also been sectarian in their sharp criticism of evangelicals. North, for example, has published a series of attacks on believers in the pre-millennialist version of when Christ will come back.

Perhaps even more than the punitive legal code they propose, it is the Reconstructionists' religion of Calvinism that makes them unlikely to appeal to most evangelicals. Calvinism is the by now almost archaic belief that God has already preordained every single thing that happens in the world. Most importantly, even one's own salvation or condemnation to hell is already a done deal as far as God is concerned. By this philosophical scheme, human will is not involved in changing the course of history. All that is left for the "righteous" to do is to play out their pre-ordained role, including their God-given right to dominate everyone else. Calvinism arose in Europe centuries ago in part as a reaction to Roman Catholicism's heavy emphasis on priestly authority and on salvation through acts of penance. One of the classic works of sociology, Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, links the rise of Calvinism to the needs of budding capitalists to judge their own economic success as a sign of their preordained salvation. The rising popularity of Calvinism coincided with the consolidation of the capitalist economic system. Calvinists justified their accumulation of wealth, even at the expense of others, on the grounds that they were somehow destined to prosper. It is no surprise that such notions still find resonance within the Christian Right which champions capitalism and all its attendant inequalities.

The hitch comes in the Calvinists' unyielding predestinarian-ism, the cornerstone of Reconstructionism and something at odds with the world view of evangelical Christians. Last fall in Sacramento some of the local Reconstructionists held their annual Reformation Bible Conference, cosponsored by the Covenant Reformed Church and the Chalcedon Foundation. The theme of the weekend was Christian "apologetics," meaning defense of the faith against heretical enemies of all stripes.

R.J. Rushdoony was the keynote speaker and the main draw for the 250 people in attendance. Rushdoony's message was that "any compromise with creationism is a compromise with the faith." By that he meant that all Christians must subscribe to the literal six-day creation story in the book of Genesis. Creationism, he said, means "that all power in all creation comes from above." To believe otherwise is to succumb to Darwin's theory that all power rises from, or evolves, from below. Generations before Darwin, Rushdoony said, the theory of revolution, not just evolution, gained ground through the practices of paganism and witchcraft—egalitarian religions—and the very idea that power grows from the bottom up. This (r)evolutionary heresy leads to the idea that politics, even the state, can solve human problems. No, Rushdoony insisted, "the God who created all things has thereby ordained and predestined all things."

Other speakers echoed this message. They indicted any and all fellow Christians (including the late Francis Schaeffer) who think there is a legitimate role for independent human will, let alone pluralist cooperation with unbelievers in a democracy.

The problem is that evangelicals (a category including pente-costal-charismatics and fundamental Baptists) believe that God's will works in conjunction with free human will. They believe that salvation is not by the grace of God only but by the faith of individual believers who freely choose to surrender to Jesus. In fact, the cornerstone of the Western religions is the view that God's will and human will work together. Evangelicals believe strongly that humans freely choose sin or salvation and that those already converted have the duty to go out and offer the choice they have made to others. Calvinism, in contrast, undercuts the whole motivation for missionary work, and it is the missionary zeal to redeem sinners that motivates much of the Christian Right's political activism. Calvinism is an essentially reckless doctrine. If God has already decided what's going to happen, then the dominion-•sts do not have to take responsibility for their actions. (They can kill abortion doctors "knowing" it is the right thing to do.) Evangelicals, even those on the Right, still believe they as individuals are capable of error.

Furthermore, the Calvinist Reconstructionists look askance at the other key draw of evangelical churches and that is the experiential dimension. The Calvinists sing staid songs, read the Bible and weighty theological treatises. What's going on especially in the charismatic churches is something else. There Christians by the thousands are flocking to wild faith healing extravaganzas where people shout and cry and fall on the floor because they are "slain in the spirit." The latest trend is called "holy laughter" whereby the Holy Spirit supposedly leads crowds to roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably, sometimes for hours. This kind of stuff is happening in churches all over the country—often televised for the Christian TV networks—with the backing of prominent evangelical leaders. Some critics have condemned the eccentric antics but they miss the point that people go to church not to read books but to experience something extraordinary. Many get a similar high from joining a political crusade. Large numbers of politically active evangelicals are not going to want to sit still for boring philosophical lectures on how their personal experiences don't matter in the face of pre-ordained reality.

The Founding Fathers Said So

Abb.: David Barton
[Bildquelle: http://www.wallbuilders.com/aboutus/bio/index.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09]

They do sit still, by the thousands, for David Barton of WallBuilders, Inc. From a place called Aledo, Texas, Barton has successfully mass marketed a version of dominion theology that has made his lectures, books and tapes among the hottest properties in the born-again business. With titles like The Myth of Separation and America: to Pray or Not to Pray, Barton's pitch is that, with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin, the Founding Fathers were all evangelicals who intended to make this a Christian nation.

Three times last summer I saw crowds of home schoolers and the Christian Coalition go wild with applause for Barton's performance. With an overhead projector, he flashes slides of the Founding Fathers and reels off selected quotes from them saying things like "only the righteous shall rule." Then Barton shifts to a second set of slides. For the years following the Supreme Court's 1962 and 1963 decisions against public school prayer, his charts and graphs show statistical declines in SAT scores and rising rates of teenage promiscuity, drug abuse and other bad behavior. Apparently no one has ever explained to Barton that a mere sequence of unrelated events does not add up to a cause and effect relationship.

Barton's bottom line is that only "the righteous" should occupy public office. This is music to the ears of Christian Right audiences. To grasp Barton's brand of dominion theology, unlike with the Reconstructionists, one does not need a seminary degree. Barton's pseudo-history fills a need most Americans have, to know more about our country's past. His direct linkage of the deified Founding Fathers with contemporary social problems cuts through the evangelicals' theological sectarianism and unites them in a feasible project. They may not be able to take dominion over the whole earth or even agree about when Jesus will return, but they sure can go home and back a godly candidate for city council, or run themselves. Barton tells his audiences that they personally have an important role to play in history, and that is what makes his dominion theology popular.

To Rule and Reign

But Barton's message flies in the face of the Christian Coalition's public claims about wanting only its fair share of political power. In his new book Politically Incorrect, Coalition director Ralph Reed writes: "What do religious conservatives really want? They want a place at the table in the conversation we call democracy. Their commitment to pluralism includes a place for faith among the many other competing interests in society." Yet the Coalition's own national convention last September opened with a plenary speech by Rev. D. James Kennedy who echoed the Reconstructionist line when he said that "true Christian citizenship" includes a cultural mandate to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God."

Abb.: D. (Denis) James Kennedy (1930 - )
[Bildquelle: http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Welcome/. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-09]

Who is telling the truth about the Christian Right's bid for Power, Ralph Reed or the popular dominionists who speak at Christian Coalition gatherings? Liberal critics of the Christian Right would have us believe that Reed and Pat Robertson are just Plain lying when they say they want to work hand-in-hand, like good pluralists, with non-Christians in government. To bolster the "stealth" thesis, liberals have to resort to conspiracy theory: Barton and Kennedy spoke at the conference, so Reed must secretly agree with them.

A better explanation is that the Christian Right, like other mass movements before it, is a bundle of internal contradictions which work themselves out in the course of real political activism. Ideas have consequences, but it is also true that ideas have causes, rooted in interests and desires. The Christian Right is in a genuine state of tension and flux over its own mission. Part a movement to resist and roll back even moderate change, part just a more reactionary wing of prevailing Republicanism, the Christian Right wants to take dominion and collaborate with the existing political-economic system, both at the same time. Liberal critics, who also endorse the ruling system, can recognize only the Christian Right's takeover dimension. Radicals can see that the dominion project is dangerous because it is, in part, business as usual."

[Quelle: Diamond, Sara: Facing the wrath : confronting the Right in dangerous times. -- Monroe, Me. : Common Courage Press, ©1996.  -- 236 p. ; 20 cm. -- ISBN
1567510787. -- S. 48 - 56.]

6. Bible Belt

Abb.: Bible Belt

Als Bible Belt ("Bibel-Gürtel") wird in erster Linie der Süden der USA (von Texas nach Norden bis Kansas östlich bis Virginia und südlich bis Florida) bezeichnet. Der Bible Belt zeichnet sich aus durch einen sehr konservativen Protestantismus. Manchmal spricht man auch von Utah, dem Mormonenstaat als "Bible Belt des Westens".

Unter den Städten spielt Nashville in Tennessee eine besondere Rolle, weil Nashville von einigen protestantischen Denominationen als Heimat angesehen wird. Die Stadt wird dadurch als "Buckle (Schnalle) of the Bible Belt" bezeichnet. Die Stadt muss sich diese Bezeichnung aber mit anderen teilen, u.a. mit Dayton in Tennessee, denn hier spielte der sogenannte Affenprozess 1925.

[vgl.: Bible Belt. - In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

7. Southern Strategy

"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states. It is also used in a more general sense, in which cultural (especially racial) themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. The use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed. Pre-History of the Southern Strategy Prior to the 1960s, both of the major U.S. parties were much more mixed, ideologically and geographically, than they are today. The Democratic party contained both a liberal, Northern/Midwestern bloc and a conservative Southern bloc. Republicans were also split ideologically, including a conservative activist base as well as a liberal wing from the Northeast. In 1948, a group of Democratic congressmen, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, split from the Democrats in reaction to an anti-segregation speech given by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, founding the States Rights Democratic or Dixiecrat Party, which ran Thurmond as its presidential candidate. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. The party's principles were revived by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees like Dwight Eisenhower; Goldwater's opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, Northern wing of the party. Rockefeller's defeat in the primary is seen as the beginning of the end for moderates and liberals in the Republican party. Roots of the Southern Strategy At this point, the debate begins. The facts are this: in the 1964 presidential race, Goldwater adopted an extremely conservative stance. In particular, he emphasized the issue of what he called "states' rights". As a conservative, Goldwater did not favor strong action by the federal government--for instance, though not a segregationist personally, he strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that, first, it was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and second, it was an interference with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose. This was a popular stand in the Southern states; whether or not this was specifically a tactic designed to appeal to racist Southern white voters is a matter of debate. Regardless, the only states that Goldwater won in 1964 besides Arizona, were five Deep Southern states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The Southern Strategy was deployed even more effectively by Richard Nixon in the election of 1968. Nixon, with the aid of now-Senator Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order." As a result every state that had been in the Confederacy, except Texas, voted for either Nixon or Southern Democrat George Wallace, despite a strong tradition of supporting Democrats. Meanwhile, Nixon parlayed a wide perception as a moderate into wins in other states, taking a solid majority in the electoral college. That is why the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election. Evolution of the Southern Strategy As civil rights grew more accepted throughout the nation, basing a general election strategy on appeals to "states' rights" as a naked play against civil rights laws grew less effective; there was a greater danger of a national backlash. Nevertheless, in 1980, when Reagan announced his presidential candidacy with a speech in support of states rights, he did so in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a small town known as the site of the murder of three civil rights advocates in 1964. Reagan went on to make a speech praising Jefferson Davis, the strongly pro-slavery president of the Confederacy and states rights advocate, at Stone Mountain, Georgia, site of the founding of the modern Klan. A prominent Klan leader endorsed Reagan, but he disavowed the endorsement and moved to neutralize any negative publicity by securing the support of noted Southern civil rights activists Hosea Williams and Ralph David Abernathy. An appeal to racism may have played a role in subsequent Republican races for the House and Senate in the South. The Willie Horton commercials used by supporters of George H.W. Bush in the election of 1988 may also have been such an appeal. Other examples include the 1990 re-election campaign of Jesse Helms, which attacked his opponent's alleged support of "racial quotas." Many ardent Democratic party supporters claim that support for federalism in the Republican party platform is, and always has been, nothing but a code word for racism, a charge Republicans consistently deny. Such allegations typically peak after a racially charged controversy involving Republicans, such as Senator Trent Lott's supportive remarks at Thurmond's hundredth birthday celebration. Leaving aside all questions of race, the Republicans have continued to modify the Southern strategy, and to use it not only within the South, but in conservative areas of the Midwest and other regions. As racism became less politically palatable as a lone motivator, it was augmented by divisions based on other cultural issues like abortion, school prayer, or funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. These cultural differences are emphasized rather than economic issues including tariffs, federal job spending, and so on (with the single exception of taxes). They play on perceived and actual cultural differences between the South and other parts of the nation; the South is seen as more religious and traditional than, say, New England. An example of this new iteration of the Southern strategy can be seen in this quote from Pat Buchanan, a famously conservative political pundit, in which he denounces John Kerry (the 2004 Democratic contender for President) as: ...a Massachusetts liberal who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, backs civil unions for homosexuals, voted to defend the infanticide known as partial-birth abortion and wants to raise the federal income taxes that George Bush lowered. [1] (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36888) The strategy can be seen in the phrase "Massachusetts liberal", emphasizing Kerry's alleged cultural alienness to the South, and in the emphasis on cultural, rather than economic, issues. A 2004 book by Thomas Frank, entitled What's the Matter with Kansas?, revolves around the rise of cultural issues as a Republican strategy. [Quelle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06]

8. Evangelicals / Evangelikale

Abb.: Stop the axis of evil evangelicals. -- Demonstration in Hollywood gegen den Irakkrieg
[Bildquelle: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/105891.php. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

Ein bisschen Statistik:

die Barna Gruppe, die regelmäßig u.a. zur religiösen Einstellung in der USA Befragungen durchführt, geht 2004 davon aus, dass 7 % der Bevölkerung Evangelikale im strengen Sinn sind, das wären etwa 14 - 16 Millionen Amerikaner. Neuere Befragungen der Barna Gruppe kommen auf 9% (2006) unter der erwachsenen Bevölkerung.

Unter diesen 16 Millionen sind 76% Weiße, die großteils im Süden leben. Sie sind mehrheitlich der Republikanischen Partei verbunden und haben sich als Wähler registrieren lassen. Sie beschreiben sich selbst eher als sehr konservativ.

Der Großteil der Evangelikalen gehört zu protestantischen Kirchen, unter den Katholiken rechnet man mit einem Prozent evangelikaler Christen.  

[Quelle: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-11 und: Barna survey reveals significant growth in born again population. - http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=231. -- Zugriff am 2008-03-13]

9. Neo-evangelicalism

Die Ideen wurden durch die Zeitschrift "Christianity today" verkündet. Als Ausbildungsstätten galt das Fuller Seminary in Kalifornien und das Wheaton College in Illinois, aus dem der bekannte Evangelist Billy Graham hervorgegangen ist. Der Einfluss dieser Bewegung war so stark, dass die Bewegung bald nur noch unter dem Namen Evangelikalismus lief.

Diese Bewegung zeichnet sich dadurch aus,

• dass sie die Betonung der eigenen Denomination zurückweist, keine Tradition wird bevorzugt
• dass sie ein sogenanntes "parachurch model", also eine Kirche unterhalb der Kirche, nutzt. Diese Kirchen sind heute jedem durch die entsprechenden Fernsehkirchen bekannt. Es geht durchaus ums Geschäft, man hat Verlage, Fernseh- und Radioanstalten, eigene Filmstudios, Schulen und Colleges
• dass man Missionierungskreuzzüge unterstützt (man denke an Billy Graham, der weltweit vor großen Mengen von Menschen predigte)
• dass man Massenevente plant und durchführt wie z.B. die Promise Keepers
• dass man Organisationen gründet wie Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Youth for Christ, Youth with a Mission ua.
• dass man Glaubenssätze formuliert, die aber sehr weit gefasst sind, so dass Christen unterschiedlicher Denominationen sich beteiligen können

Es gibt Kirchen, die auf der einen Seite Multi-Media-Shows u.ä. anbieten und auf der anderen Seite für die konservativen Christen unter ihnen traditionelle Gottesdienste.

Man geht davon aus, dass diese neo-evangelikale Bewegung die einflussreichste Entwicklung im amerikanischen Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des letzten Jahrhunderts war.

[vgl.: Neo-evangelicalism. In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-evangelicalism. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

10. Pentecostals / Pfingstbewegung

Heilig-Geistlied "O Comforter, gentle and tender" (1897) von Albert B. Simpson (1843 - 1919):

"Die ersten Pfingstgemeinden sind aus Heiligungsgemeinden heraus entstanden. Die amerikanische Heiligungsbewegung entwickelte sich als unmittelbare Vorläuferin der Pfingstbewegung in den 60er und 70er Jahren des 19. Jh. aus dem Methodismus heraus. Sie fußte auf John Wesleys (1703-1791) Unterscheidung zwischen Bekehrung und Rechtfertigung (als Beginn des Glaubensweges) einerseits und der Heiligung als einem »zweiten Segen« andererseits. Heiligungsprediger, die die Tradition der amerikanischen Erweckungsversammlungen weiterführten, verkündigten die völlige Hingabe des ganzen Lebens an Gott - mit der »Freiheit von der innewohnenden Sünde« - als eine höhere Stufe des Glaubens. Zum Teil wurde die »Heiligung« als ein konkretes zweites Durchbruchserlebnis (nach der Bekehrung) verstanden und schon hier »Geisttaufe« oder auch »Erfüllung mit dem Heiligen Geist« genannt. Drei Wesenszüge der Heiligungsbewegung bereiteten den Weg für die Pfingstbewegung: der Totalitätscharakter des Glaubenslebens, die Geisterfüllung als Erlebnis momentaner völliger Heiligung und konkrete Erfahrungen eines wunderbaren Wirkens Gottes bzw. des Heiligen Geistes. In pfingstlerischen Darstellungen werden als eigentlicher Beginn der Pfingstbewegung die beiden folgenden Ereignisse überliefert: In der kleinen Bibelschule, die der methodistische Heiligungsprediger Charles F. Parham (1873-1929) seinem 1898 gegründeten Healing home in Topeka, Kansas, angeschlossen hatte, waren die etwa 40 Schülerinnen und Schüler Ende des Jahres 1900 aufgefordert worden, das in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas mehrfach vorkommende Zungenreden zu untersuchen. Sie sind daraufhin zu der »einmütigen Schlußfolgerung gekommen, daß das Zungenreden der biblische Beweis für die Taufe des Heiligen Geistes sei« (K. Kendrick), ein physisches Erkennungszeichen (initial physical sign) des Gläubigen. So versuchten sie mit Eifer, dieses Erlebnis herbeizubeten. Am Neujahrstag 1901 sprach dann als erste die 18jährige Agnes Ozman in Zungen, bald die Mehrzahl der Schüler und Schülerinnen, auch Parham selbst. Sogleich begannen sie, ihre Erfahrung zu verbreiten und sie anderen Christen zu vermitteln. Parham ging 1905 nach Houston/Texas, wo er erneut eine Bibelschule eröffnete, in der nun Gläubige mit »Pfingsterfahrung« zu »Pfingstpredigern« ausgebildet wurden. Einer seiner Schüler, der farbige Heiligungsprediger William J. Seymour (1870-1922), wurde im Frühjahr 1906 nach Los Angeles, in eine Heiligungsgemeinde von schwarzen Christen, eingeladen. Doch als er die neue Lehre Parhams verkündete, daß die Erfüllung mit dem Heiligen Geist an das Zungenreden gebunden sei, wurde er sofort wieder ausgeladen. Daraufhin bat man ihn, in einer Hausversammlung zu sprechen, wo seit einiger Zeit intensiv um die Geistausgießung gebetet wurde. Als hier einige Farbige in Zungen sprachen - erstmals auch Seymour selbst -, geschah der Aufbruch der neuen Bewegung. Ein altes Gebäude in der Azusa-Street wurde das Zentrum der Erweckung, die hier dreieinhalb Jahre anhielt und die anfangs eher enthusiastisch als geistlich war. Doch bald kam es zu einer gewissen Klärung, und größere Ordnung kehrte ein. Frank Bartleman, ein ordinierter Heiligungsprediger, war von Anfang an mit der »Erweckung in der Azusa-Street« verbunden, ja, hatte sie sogar mitverbreitet. Seine begeisternden Berichte, die er in unzähligen Zeitungsartikeln und Traktaten hinausgehen ließ, machten das Geschehen bekannt, und bald setzte ein Besucherstrom aus aller Welt ein. Innerhalb kurzer Zeit entstanden an vielen Orten pfingstlerische Versammlungen. In den USA schlossen sich mehrere Pfingstgemeinschaften 1914 zu den Assemblies of God zusammen, die zu dem größten amerikanischen Pfingstverband anwuchsen und ihre Missionare in viele Länder schickten. Vor allem in der Dritten Welt breitete sich die Pfingstbewegung aus, hier besonders in Südamerika, wo die Pfingstler heute die stärkste Gruppe der nicht-katholischen Christen bilden. In Afrika sind die Grenzen zwischen den mehr bodenständigen »unabhängigen Kirchen« und den durch Mission ins Land gekommenen »Pfingstkirchen« fließend. In Europa faßte die Pfingstbewegung in England, vor allem aber in Skandinavien, Rumänien und Rußland Fuß. Der Grund für das große Wachstum (besonders seit 1960) liegt nicht allein in der starken pfingstlerischen Mission, sondern vor allem auch in den einfachen Lehrinhalten, der unkomplizierten lebens- und volksnahen Religiosität und in der großen Anpassungsfähigkeit des Pfingstlertums." [Quelle: Handbuch religiöse Gemeinschaften und Weltanschauungen [Elektronische Ressource] / im Auftr. der Kirchenleitung der VELKD hrsg. von Horst Reller ... -- [CD-ROM-Ausg. der] 5., neu bearb. und erw. Aufl. -- Gütersloh : Gütersloher Verl.-Haus, ©2000. -- 1 CD-ROM : farb. ; 12 cm + Beil. ([3] S.). -- ISBN: 3-579-02299-7]

"Size The largest Pentecostal denominations in the United States today are the Church of God in Christ, Church of God (Cleveland) and the Assemblies of God. According to a Spring 1998 article in Christian History, there are about 11,000 different pentecostal or charismatic denominations worldwide. The size of Pentecostalism in the U.S. is estimated to be more than 20 million and also including approx 918,000 (4%) of the Hispanic-American population, counting all unaffiliated congregations, although exact numbers are hard to come by, in part because some tenets of Pentecostalism are held by members of non-Pentecostal denominations in what has been called the charismatic movement. Pentecostalism was conservatively estimated to number around 115 million followers worldwide in 2000; other estimates place the figure closer to 400 million. The great majority of Pentecostals are to be found in Third World countries (see the Statistics subsection below), although much of their international leadership is still North American. Pentecostalism is sometimes referred to as the "third force of Christianity." The largest Christian church in the world is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea, a Pentecostal church. Founded and led by David Yonggi Cho since 1958, it had 780,000 members in 2003. Statistics Africa: 41.1 million Nigeria: 12.1 million Kenya: 4.1 million South Africa: 3.4 million Ethiopia: 2.6 million South America: 32.4 million Brazil: 13.5 million Argentina: 3.5 million Mexico: 2.7 million Guatemala: 2.0 million Chile: 1.8 million North America: 21.5 million United States: 20.2 million Canada: 1.3 million Asia: 15.3 million China: unknown; believed to be several million Indonesia: 5.0 million India: 3.9 million South Korea: 1.7 million Europe: 4.3 million United Kingdom: 0.9 million Oceania: 3.3 million Papua New Guinea: 0.4 million Australia: 0.4 million Source: Operation World by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk, 2000, unless otherwise indicated. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

In einer neuen Umfrage der Barna Gruppe wurde festgestellt, dass inzwischen 80 Millionen Erwachsene in der USA sich als charismatische oder pfingstlerische Christen bezeichnen. Fast die Hälfte aller Protestanten können dazugerechnet werden, aber auch 36 % der US-Katholiken.

[vgl.: Is American Christianity turning charismatic? . - January 7, 2008. - URL: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=287. -- Zugriff am 2008-03-13]

Ausgezeichnete weiterführende Ressource:

The new international dictionary of Pentecostal and charismatic movements.  -- Rev. and expanded ed. [of: Dictionary of Pentecostal and charismatic movements] / Stanley M. Burgess, editor ; Eduard M. van der Maas, associate editor.  -- Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan Pub. House, ©2002.  -- xxxi, 1278 S. : Ill. ; 25 cm.  -- ISBN: 0310224810. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch direkt bei amazon.de bestellen}

11. Confessing Movement / Bekenntnisbewegung

Abb.: A Confessing church ministry
[Bildquelle: http://confessingchurcharchive.homestead.com/ccmposter80501.html. -- Zugrif am 2005-03-15]

Die Bekenntnisbewegung (Confessing Movement)   ist eine moderne konservative Bewegung in den protestantischen mainline Denominationen (United Church of Christ, American Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian Church USA, Lutheran, United Methodist). Es geht darum, dass der Klerus und die Laien unzufrieden sind, weil ihre Kirchen sich von der Tradition wegbewegen bzw. eine liberalere Theologie vertreten. Die Diskussion entzündete sich besonders an der Frage der Frauenordination und dem Verhalten gegenüber Homosexuellen. Die Bekenntnisbewegung hat eine große Nähe und ist auch beeinflusst von anderen konservativen Bewegungen wie z.B. den Fundamentalisten (es geht ja um das Zurück zum ursprünglichen Bekenntnis). Der Unterschied ist aber, dass die Mitglieder der Bewegung in ihren Denominationen bleiben wollen, also sich weder an evangelikale oder ähnliche Gemeinschaften anschließen wollen, noch eine neue Denomination gründen wollen. Ein Grund für die Bekenntnisbewegung liegt auch darin, dass viele konservative Christen die mainline Kirche verlassen, man versucht diesen Christen eine neue Heimat zu schaffen.

Die Bekenntnisbewegung erhält starke finanzielle Unterstützung von außerhalb ihrer Denominationen, was Gemäßigte und Liberale in den mainline Denominationen als Angriff von außen ansehen. Die Finanzen kommen von Institute on Religion and Democracy (gegründet von den Neokonservativen Michael Novak und Richard Neuhaus), das wiederum unterstützt wird von den Scaife Family Chritable Trusts / Scaife Foundation (Familienstiftung des Ölmilliardärs Richard Mellon Scaife) und auch der Smith Richardson Foundation.

Die Bekenntnisbewegung in den einzelnen Richtungen:

unter den Anglikanern: seit in der episkopalen Kirche ein Schwuler zum Bischof geweiht wurde, wird der Kampf um den rechten Glauben weltweit ausgetragen. Im Kampf gegen die Liberalen in seiner Kirche hat z.B. der Pfarrer Martyn Minns, ein Frontkämpfer des Fundamentalismus, die fundamentalistisch ausgerichteten afrikanischen Anglikaner entdeckt. Er verbündete sich mit dem Erzbischof von Nigeria Peter Akinola, der davon überzeugt ist, dass seine Kirche vom Satan besessen sei, weil sie einen Homosexuellen geweiht hat und dass man die USA und Europa missionieren müsse, wenn die Episkopalkirche nicht verspricht, nie wieder einen homossexuellen Bischof zu weihen.

[vgl.: Hujer, Marc:  Scheidung auf Afrikanisch : konservative Bischöfe der anglikanischen Kirche Afrikas haben sich mit Fundamentalisten aus den USA verbündet und wollen den angeblich lauen Westen wieder auf Kurs bringen. - In: Spiegel. - 43 (2007). - S. 174 - 178]

"Presbyterian One of the fastest growing Confessing Movements is within the Presbyterian Church (USA). In February, 2002 more than 800 laity, pastors, deacons, and elders gathered in Atlanta, Georgia for the first National Celebration of Confessing Churches. Participating churches affirm that Christ is the only way of salvation, that the Bible is infallible in its teachings, and that sexual relations are exclusively for marriage. More than 1,200 of the denomination's 11,000 congregations have adopted such declarations and become part of a loosely knit Confessing Church Movement. The books Union in Christ: A Declaration for the Church (1999) and A Passion for the Gospel: Confessing Jesus Christ for the 21st Century (2000), both by Mark Achtemeier and Andrew Purves have served as rallying cries for Confessing Presbyterians. Methodist The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church quotes Methodism's founder, John Wesley, who said: I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out. Leaders have included Thomas C. Oden, Maxie Dunnam, Bill Hinson, John Ed Mathison, Karen Covey Moore, William Abraham, and James Heidinger. The movement has been very successful in maintaining doctrinal standards and traditional United Methodist positions on theology and practice at the General Conferences in Cleveland (2000) and Pittsburgh (2004). [...] Church of the Brethren Brethren Revival Fellowship was one of the earliest evangelical concern movements among the mainline Protestant denominations. It says: Many within the Church of the Brethren have set aside a firm belief in the trustworthiness and authority of the Bible, and knowingly or unknowingly have embraced the historical critical views of biblical interpretation. There has been a drift from a balanced Biblical-Anabaptist-Pietist and Brethren oriented understanding of church and state, war and peace, church discipline, and New Testament ordinances (such as the three part love feast). The Church of the Brethren has moved from preaching the Gospel of reconciliation of individuals to God through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, to a human centered program of political involvement. We believe that cultural renovation begins one by one with personal conversion to faith in Jesus Christ. We are concerned about the diminishing membership and the need for revival and evangelism within the Church of the Brethren. It seems that many of our church officials are not ready to accept the fact that doctrinal beliefs and morality issues are affecting the giving and are contributing to the membership decline. Lutheran Conservative traditions have always been strong in the Lutheran synods of North America. Over the last two centuries, most of the many new synods were started by members who felt their synod was straying from Christian orthodoxy. The Evangelical Lutheran Confessing Fellowship (ELCF) is one of the more recent of these "reform" movements, inspired by the other Protestant "confessing movements" described in this article. The ELCF was organized in Hamilton Square, Pennsylvania, in June, 2002 by about 60 pastors and laypersons who belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest and perhaps most liberal Lutheran body in North America. The goal of the movement is to persuade the ELCA to move its theology and teaching rightward, rather than seperation from the ELCA. According to their initial press release, a primary goal is to head off apparent movement toward formal recognition and ordination of homosexual clergy. [1] (http://www.elcf.net/news_061802.html) Congregational United Church of Canada Uniting Church in Australia After a 2003 decision to ordain practicing homosexuals, conservative members of the church formed The Reforming Alliance (http://www.reformingalliance.org.au/) in order to discuss the issues and work out a strategy. This process was helped by another group called Evangelical Members of the Uniting Church (EMU) (http://www.emu.asn.au) which had been formed in the early 1990s as a conservative response to the church's growing progressive stance. [Quelle: Confessing Movement. - In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Movement. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

12. Born again / wiedergeboren

Abb.: Born Again auto sales. -- Merrick, Long Island
[Bildquelle: http://www.satanslaundromat.com/sl/archives/2004_03.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

[Quelle der midi-Datei: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/y/e/yemustbe.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

Mindestens 45 % der Bevölkerung der USA bezeichnen sich als "born again" also wiedergeborene Christen. Es geht um eine Bekehrungserfahrung, die im Leben einmalig ist. "Hast Du Jesus getroffen?" kann sogar ein fremder Gast gefragt werden und man versucht alles, um diesem solch ein Treffen zu ermöglichen, z.B. in einem der ekstatischen Gottesdienste. Die wiedergeborenen Christen glauben, dass man ohne diese Wiedergeburt kein echter Christ ist und damit letztlich kein Heil findet (d.h. man landet in der Hölle). Man lehnt eine Möglichkeit des langsamen Wachsens des Glaubens ab.

Ab dem Moment der Wiedergeburt kann man sein Leben neu beginnen, denn alle vorherigen Untaten und Sünden sind vergeben und können einem auch nicht mehr vorgehalten werden. Politiker in den USA können dann darauf verweisen, dass moralisch Problematisches im alten Leben stattgefunden hat, sie aber nach ihrer Bekehrung neue Menschen sind (man denke an George W. Bush, der betont, dass er wiedergeborener Christ ist).

Da die wiedergeborenen Christen die Bibel sehr hoch schätzen und sie zu einem großen Teil wörtlich auslegen, soll hier die zugrunde liegende Bibelstelle zitiert werden. Die Lehre von den wiedergeborenen Christen bezieht sich auf  das Gespräch zwischen Nikodemus und Jesus:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God."

Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."

Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

-John 3:1-5 (New Revised Standard Version)

"Es war aber einer unter den Pharisäern, sein Name war Nikodemus, einer vom Hohen Rat der Juden. Dieser kam zu ihm in der Nacht und sagte: Rabbi, wir wissen, dass du als Lehrer von Gott gekommen bist, denn niemand kann diese Zeichen tun, die du tust, wenn nicht Gott mit ihm ist. Jesus entgegnete ihm: Amen, amen, ich sage dir: Wer nicht von oben geboren wird, kann das Reich Gottes nicht sehen. Nikodemus sagte zu ihm: Wie kann denn ein Mensch geboren werden, wenn er alt ist? Er kann doch nicht ein zweites Mal in den Schoss der Mutter gelangen und geboren werden? Jesus antwortete: Amen, amen, ich sage dir: Wer nicht aus Wasser und Geist geboren ist, ist Fleisch, und was aus dem Geist geboren ist, ist Geist. Wundere dich nicht, dass ich dir gesagt habe: Ihr müsst von oben geboren werden. Der Wind weht, wo er will, und du hörst sein Sausen, weisst aber nicht, woher er kommt und wohin er geht. So ist es mit jedem, der aus dem Geist geboren ist. [...] Und wie Mose in der Wüste die Schlange erhöht hat, so muss der Menschensohn erhöht werden, damit jeder, der glaubt, in ihm ewiges Leben hat. Denn so hat Gott die Welt geliebt, dass er den einzigen Sohn gab, damit jeder, der an ihn glaubt, nicht verloren gehe, sondern ewiges Leben habe. Denn Gott hat den Sohn nicht in die Welt gesandt, dass er die Welt richte, sondern dass die Welt durch ihn gerettet werde. Wer an ihn glaubt, wird nicht gerichtet; wer aber nicht glaubt, ist schon gerichtet, weil er nicht an den Namen des einzigen Sohnes Gottes geglaubt hat. Dies aber ist das Gericht: Das Licht ist in die Welt gekommen, und die Menschen liebten die Finsternis mehr als das Licht, denn ihre Werke waren böse. Jeder, der Böses tut, hasst das Licht und kommt nicht zum Licht, damit seine Werke nicht aufgedeckt werden. Wer aber tut, was der Wahrheit entspricht, kommt zum Licht, damit offenbar wird, dass seine Werke in Gott gewirkt sind."

Johannes 3, 1-8 und 14-21, zitiert nach der neuesten Übersetzung: Zürcher Bibel 2007. Daraus auch die Anmerkung zu 3,3 "Der griechische Ausdruck, der mit der Wendung `von oben geboren werden´ übersetzt ist, kann auch bedeuten: `von neuem geboren werden´. In diesem zweiten Sinn versteht ihn Nikodemus."

Wiedergeborene Christen legen die Betonung auf "aus dem Geist geboren" sein und sind keine Wiedertäufer. Die Bewegung der wiedergeborenen Christen entstand in den USA schon in den evangelikalen Erweckungsbewegungen des 18. Jahrhunderts (First Great Awakening 1734-1744) und hat stetig zugenommen, zumal die größten protestantischen Denominationen wie die Southern Baptist Convention und die pfingstlerischen Kirchen dieses einmalige Bekehrungserlebnis gefordert haben.

 

Abb.: Einband eines sehr empfehlenswerten, amüsanten Buches über das Heranwachsen in einer Born-again-Familie

"Alle »Wiedergeborenen«, mit denen ich sprach, glaubten, ihre Bekehrung sei ein Teil von Gottes Plan für ihr Schicksal gewesen: in diesem Sinne vertraten sie die traditionelle calvinistische Sicht, nach der das Heil nicht durch Werke, sondern durch die Gnade kommt. Bonnie zum Beispiel war überzeugt, es habe auch zu einem solchen Plan gehört, dass sie mit Ende Vierzig noch einmal studiert hatte. Vor der Ehe hatte sie nur die Highschool beendet; und obwohl sie in der Kirche, der sie und ihr Mann in ihrem zeitweiligen Wohnort Shreveport/Louisiana angehört hatten, als Sonntagsschullehrerin gearbeitet und Jugendarbeit geleistet hatte, sah sie sich erst später, als sie nach Dallas gekommen und den Baptisten beigetreten waren, dazu in der Lage, zu studieren und einen Abschluss am South-Western Theological Seminary zu erwerben. Dabei erwähnte sie allerdings nicht, dass es für verheiratete Frauen nicht ungewöhnlich ist, sich weiterzubilden, wenn ihre Kinder groß sind. Der Gedanke, Gott habe einen besonderen Plan für jeden einzelnen, ist psychologisch natürlich sehr tröstlich. Finanzielle Härten, Zurückweisung oder Demütigung durch Arbeitgeber, Gatten und Kinder, der Kampf gegen die Schuldenlast, häufige Arbeitsplatzwechsel und Umzüge in fremde Städte und neue Vororte - der ganze rastlose amerikanische Alptraum im Lebensgefühl jener US-Bürger, die nicht genug Talent, Ehrgeiz oder Konkurrenzgeist (oder ganz einfach ein bisschen Pech) haben: all diese Dinge werden erträglicher, wenn man sie als vorherbestimmt sieht, oder als »Prüfungen« der Standhaftigkeit, von der Art, wie sie im Buch Hiob beschrieben sind. Für das fundamentalistische Denken ist nichts so trivial, als dass es Gottes Aufmerksamkeit nicht verdiente.  »Fast alles, ob Gutes oder Böses«, so Nancy Ammerman, eine Soziologin von der Emory University in Atlanta in ihrer Studie über den modernen Fundamentalismus, lässt sich als Gottes Wirken erklären. Gott bewahrt Geschirr vor dem Zerbrechen und findet Dinge wieder, die verlorengegangen sind. Er schenkt Freude und Nachkommenschaft. Er kümmert sich darum, dass Autos zu erschwinglichen Preisen repariert werden. Er legt günstige Zeitpläne für Überstunden fest und macht Einstellungen und Entlassungen angenehmer. Er sorgt für Kleider und Nahrung, wenn sie gebraucht werden, und ebenso für weniger wichtige Dinge, etwa Karten fürs Rodeo oder einen kleinen Hund für die Kinder. Vor allem aber bietet er eine seelische Schutzhülle gegen den gesellschaftlichen Verfall der Werte einerseits und gegen privates Chaos andererseits. Daher ist er besonders erfolgreich beim Entwirren von Eheproblemen. Mehrere Männer, mit denen ich sprach, waren der Meinung, sie hätten ihre Ehe durch den Eintritt in die Kirche gerettet. »Dallas ist die Scheidungshauptstadt der USA«, sagte Bonnie. »Eine Ehekrise kann wirklich die Bekehrung auslösen. Das habe ich immer wieder erlebt. Ich habe viele Menschen beobachtet und dabei oft gesehen, wie die stärkste Entwicklung zu Christus durch eine persönliche Krise bewirkt wird. Wahrscheinlich suchen wir erst dann Hilfe, wenn wir merken, wie verletzlich wir im Grunde sind.« Manchmal waren es die Männer, die sich Jesus zuwandten, in der Hoffnung, ihre Frauen würden dann gefügiger werden. Doch oft waren es die Frauen selbst, die damit ihre Ehe zu retten hofften. Sie erwarteten, Ordnung in ihre Situation zu bringen, indem sie die traditionelle Rolle der Haus- und Familienmutter übernahmen - oft nach Schwierigkeiten im Aushandeln gleichberechtigter Beziehungen. »Die Frauen seien Untertan ihren Männern als dem Herrn. Denn der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt, gleichwie auch Christus das Haupt ist der Gemeinde.« (Eph. 5,22-23.) Die Unterordnung der Frau unter den Mann, vielleicht nach einem längeren Ringen, wurde durch die Bibel gerechtfertigt und annehmbarer gemacht. Das Verlassen der unausgeloteten und trügerischen Gewässer der Emanzipationsbewegung ließ sich damit nicht als Niederlage, sondern als Sieg über die Sünde darstellen, die gemeinhin als »persönlicher Eigensinn« galt. Auf eigenem Territorium, in Haushalt und Familie, genoss die »erlöste« Frau dann natürlich unangefochtene Macht, vermutlich sogar mehr, als sie vorher gehabt hatte. Aber jetzt durfte sie komplexeren Verantwortungen ausweichen, indem sie sich ihrem Gatten als »Haupt« fügte. Als Gegenleistung konnte sie dafür der Rückendeckung der Kirche mit ihren harten sozialen und religiösen Sanktionen gegen die Ehescheidung sicher sein." [Quelle: Ruthven, Malise <1942 - >: Der göttliche Supermarkt : auf der Suche nach der Seele Amerikas. -- Frankfurt am Main : S. Fischer, 1991. -- 327 S. : Kt. ; 23 cm. -- Originaltitel: The devine supermarket (1989). -- ISBN: 3-10-068507-5. -- S. 228 - 230.]

Im Folgenden geht es um die Auslegung von Johannes 3 von Seiten einer evangelikalen Theologie, in dem die neue Geburt als eine Reinigung von Sünden bezeichnet wird. Diese einmalige Reinigung ist die Bedingung in das Reich Gottes zu kommen. Die Reinigung gibt Gott all denen, die an Christus durch den Heiligen Geist glauben. Mit dem Wort "Reinigung" kann man unter Beiziehung alttestamentlicher Stellen  die Nennung von  Wasser neben dem Geist erklären. Zu beachten ist die Überlegung, was mit den gläubigen Juden, die vor Christus gelebt haben, geschieht. Ob sie die Möglichkeit haben ebenfalls errettet zu werden? Man geht davon aus, dass die Heiligen des Alten Testaments wiedergeboren wurden, wenn sie im Glauben auf Gottes Offenbarung geantwortet haben. "New Birth. Cleansing from sin that God gives to all who believe on his Son through the Holy Spirit. It is absolutely necessary for a person to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. In the central passage in the New Testament about the new birth (John 3), Jesus tells Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, that he will not enter the kingdom of God unless he is born anew. The alternation between singular and plural Greek pronouns in the passage shows that Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus both personally and representatively. The need for the new birth is not only true of Nicodemus, but of the entire Sanhedrin, all Jews, and, by extension, all people. Some have considered the new birth to be a process a person experiences, even over a period of years. Such an interpretation is not congruent with the tense of the Greek verb in this passage. The aorist tense suggests that the new birth is an event rather than a process. Prior to a certain point in time, a person is not-born-again or regenerated; after that point, the person is. Probably the most difficult interpretative issue in John 3 is found in verse 5. The best view appears to be that "being born of water and the Spirit" presents a unified thought for the supernatural cleansing from sin that God through the Spirit effects on all who believe on his Son. This water-Spirit combination is a reflection of Ezekiel 11, 36, and Jeremiah 31. In these Old Testament passages God's Spirit is viewed as doing a revolutionary work in the lives of God's people in the new covenant age. There are a number of reasons that this interpretation is preferable. The use of one Greek preposition (ek) before the two nouns indicates a close relationship between them. Water and Spirit are complementary rather than antithetical to each other. It does not see water as a reference to Christian baptism at a time in Jesus' ministry when such baptism was not yet a historical reality. It fits well contextually in terms of Nicodemus' familiarity with the Old Testament and the need for some intelligibility on his part. It interprets "born of water and the Spirit" as equivalent to "born of God," a common Johannine term (John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:7-10; 4:7; 5:4). It comports well with the emphasis on Spirit and truth in the Johannine literature. Finally, it coheres with the use of water in the Old Testament to symbolize renewal and cleansing. Whether Old Testament believers possessed the new birth is a difficult question. No Old Testament text explicitly states that Old Testament believers were born again or regenerated. There is a relative absence of a developed theology of the Spirit in the Old Testament. But, given the universality of the need for the new birth, it can be argued that Jesus' teaching on the absolute necessity of the new birth for entrance into the kingdom of God analogically demands that Old Testament believers also had to have the divine life imparted to them through God's Spirit. Many commentators argue that Titus 3:5 argues for water baptism as the referent of the word "washing." Based on the Greek grammar, however, the translation should be rendered "the washing [produced by] regeneration and the renewal [produced by] the Holy Spirit." This interpretation also coheres with the translation of John 3. First Peter 1:23 adds a more explicit dimension to the means whereby the new birth is produced: the preached message of the truth of Jesus Christ. The key words in 1 Peter 1:22-25 expand upon and reinforce words referring to the new birth. The new birth is, then, a sovereign act of God by his Spirit in which the believer is cleansed from sin and given spiritual birth into God's household. It renews the believer's intellect, sensibility, and will to enable that person to enter the kingdom of God and to do good works. The Old Testament saints were born again when they responded in faith to God's revealed message; New Testament saints, when they respond in faith to Jesus Christ. [Quelle: Carl B. Hoch, Jr. -- In: Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology / edited by Walter A. Elwell.  -- Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books ; Carlisle, Cumbria : Paternoster Press, ©1996.  -- x, 933 S. ; 26 cm.  -- ISBN: 0801020492. -- s.v. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Ein wenig Statistik:

Interessant ist dabei,

• dass die wiedergeborene Bevölkerung stark zugenommen hat: von 31% 1983 bis zu 45% im Jahr 2006
• dass eine überwiegende Mehrheit (84%) der wiedergeborenen Christen an die Irrtumslosigkeit der Bibel glauben
• dass sie sich persönlich verantwortlich fühlen, ihren Glauben anderen nahe zu bringen (78%)
•  dass sie vor allem im Süden der USA leben
• dass sie eher die  Republikanische Partei unterstützen
• dass es mehr Frauen als Männer sind
• dass der Anteil der Afro-Amerikaner und der Weißen höher ist als der der Lateinamerikaner
• dass der Anteil der Protestanten erheblich größer ist als der der Katholiken

[Quelle: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=8. -- Zugriff am 2005-04-11 und http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=231. -- Zugriff am 2008-03-13]]

13. Dispensationalismus

Abb.: Dispensational truth
[Bildquelle: http://www.brethrenonline.org/dispens.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-15]

Eine "Dispensation" ist eine von Gott festgelegte Zeitperiode. Die jeweilige Periode ist durch eine spezifische Offenbarung des Willens Gottes gekennzeichnet. Vom Menschen wird erwartet, dass er der jeweiligen Offenbarung gehorcht. Da jede Periode ihre bestimmten Gesetze hat, können sich Vorschriften im Alten und Neuen Testament durchaus widersprechen. Die Lehre des Dispensationalismus ist in fundamentalistischen protestantischen Gruppen in den USA entstanden (verbreitet durch die "Scofield Reference Bible", s. unten),  hat im Protestantismus weltweit fast keine Anhänger. In den USA spielt die Lehre politisch eine große Rolle.

Man  geht von einem Heilsplan Gottes aus, der aus folgenden sieben Perioden besteht:

• Unschuld (Adam bis zur Vertreibung aus dem Paradies)

• Gewissen (nach dem Sündenfall bis zur Sintflut)

• Menschliche Herrschaft (nach der Sintflut: man darf Fleisch essen, die Todesstrafe wird eingeführt)

• Versprechen (die Verheißung) (Abraham bis Moses und das Geben der Thora)

• Gesetz (Moses bis zur Kreuzigung Jesu)

• Gnade (von der Kreuzigung bis zum tausendjährigen Königreich)

• das tausendjährige Königreich (1000 Jahre Regierung durch Christus auf der Erde mit dem Zentrum in Jerusalem)

Die Frage ist nun: wann beginnt das tausendjährige Königreich und kann man oder wie kann man sein Eintreffen erkennen? Es gibt viele Schriften, die aus den historischen Fakten des 20. Jahrhunderts im Vergleich mit dem Danielbuch und der Offenbarung des Johannes herauslesen wollen, dass der Beginn des Milleniums bald bevorsteht. Man spricht deshalb auch von "Prämillenniarismus". Praktisch stellt man sich das im Prinzip so vor:

• die Wiederkunft Christi ist ein reales Ereignis.                 

• Bei seiner Wiederkunft werden die frommen Toten auferstehen und die frommen lebenden Gläubigen in den Himmel entrückt ("rapture"). Das stellt man sich sehr konkret vor: denken Sie an viel Verkehr auf der Autobahn: der fromme Autofahrer verschwindet bei voller Geschwindigkeit plötzlich gen Himmel und die daneben sitzende liberale Ehefrau stirbt eventuell im angerichteten Chaos. 

• Nach diesem Ereignis muss mit sieben Jahren Leiden (tribulation) gerechnet werden, der Höhepunkt dieser schlimmen Zeit ist die Schlacht von Armageddon (in der Nähe von Jerusalem)

• Christus greift in die Schlacht ein und errichtet sein weltweites Königtum mit dem Zentrum in Jerusalem.

Innerhalb dieser Periode oder auch schon vorher erwartet man den vorausgesagten Antichrist, der versucht die Weltherrschaft zu übernehmen. Manche glauben, dass der Antichrist unter dem Deckmantel des Friedensstifters auftreten könnte, so hat man schon den Vereinten Nationen die Rolle des Antichrist zugeschrieben. Aber auch die ehemalige Sowjetunion und die Europäische Union haben diese Bezeichnung erhalten.

Nach dieser Lehre können die Christen nicht aktiv in das Weltgeschehen nach der Wiederkunft Christi eingreifen, aber man erwartet von ihnen, dass sie politisch aktiv werden, um ihre Mitmenschen in der Zeit vor der Entrückung zu retten. Einer der bekanntesten Vertreter der Lehre vom Dispensationalismus Hal Lindsey (The late great planet earth, 1970; The 1980s : countdown to Armeggedon, 1980) fordert die Christen auf, sich für die Wahlen registrieren zu lassen und christliche moralisch einwandfreie Abgeordnete zu wählen, die den "Opfern des Humanismus" helfen. Unter den Opfern werden unverheiratete Mütter, Geschiedene, Kinder von Alleinerziehenden genannt.

Zu nennen ist weiterhin Jerry Falwell, einer der einflussreichsten Prediger in den 80er Jahren und führend in der Neuen Christlichen Rechte.

Da in diesem Heilsplan Israel eine besondere Rolle zugeschrieben wird, spielt das politische Verhalten gegenüber Israel eine große Rolle. Für die Endzeit ist vorausgesagt, dass das Volk Israel sein angestammtes Land wiederbekommen muss (Bush hatte nichts dagegen, dass der Gaza-Streifen freigegeben wurde, da dieser nicht zu dem urspünglichen biblischen Land Israel gehört), dass ein Teil der Juden in den großen Leiden Jesus als Messias anerkennen, die anderen aber wie alle nichtgläubigen Christen untergehen werden. Während dieser Zeit soll der jüdische Tempel wieder aufgebaut werden, wozu die jetzt dort stehende Moschee (eine der heiligsten Stätten der Muslime) abgerissen werden müsste. (Der israelische Geheimdienst überwacht mit guten Gründen dispensationale Gruppen, denn man weiß nicht, ob einige sich als von Gott ausersehen fühlen die Moschee zu zerstören.)

[vgl.: Harding, Susan: Imagining the Last Days : the politics of Apocalyptic language. - In: Accounting for fundamentalisms : the dynamic character of movements / ed. by Martin E. Marty ... - Chicago [u.a.] : Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994. - S. 57 - 78]

[vgl.: Dispensationalism. - In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

Die Dispensations in The Scofield Reference Bible von 1917 und deutsche Übersetzung der Bibelstellen aus der Zürcher Bibel, 2007:

(1:28, heading) A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture. First Dispensation: Innocency zu Genesis 1,28: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." "Und Gott segnete sie, und Gott sprach zu ihnen:  Seid fruchtbar und mehrt euch und füllt die Erde und macht sie untertan, und herrscht über die Fische des Meers und über die Vögel des Himmels und über alle Tiere, die sich auf der Erde regen."  (1:28) The First Dispensation: Innocency. Man was created in innocency, placed in a perfect environment, subjected to an absolutely simple test, and warned of the consequence of disobedience. The woman fell through pride; the man, deliberately (1 Tim. 2:14). God restored His sinning creatures, but the dispensation of innocency ended in the judgment of the Expulsion (Gen. 3:24). Second Dispensation: Conscience Zu Genesis 3,23: "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. " "So schickte ihn der HERR, Gott, aus dem Garten Eden fort, dass er den Erdboden bebaue, von dem er genommen war." (3:23) The Second Dispensation: Conscience. By disobedience man came to a personal and experimental knowledge of good and evil—of good as obedience, of evil as disobedience to the known will of God. Through that knowledge conscience awoke. Expelled from Eden and placed under the second, or Adamic Covenant man was responsible to do all known good, to abstain from all known evil, and to approach God through sacrifice. The result of this second testing of man is stated in Gen. 6:5, and the dispensation ended in the judgment of the Flood. Apparently "the east of the garden" (v. 24), where were the cherubims and the flame, remained the place of worship through this second dispensation. Third Dispensation: Human Government Zu Genesis 8,21: "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." "Und der HERR roch den beschwichtigenden Duft, und der HERR sprach bei sich selbst: Nie werde ich wieder die Erde verachten um des Menschen willen. Denn das Trachten des Menschenherzens ist böse von Jugend an. Und nie werde ich wieder schlagen, was da lebt, wie ich getan habe." (8:21) The Third Dispensation: Human Government. Under Conscience, as in Innocency, man utterly failed, and the judgment of the Flood marks the end of the second dispensation and the beginning of the third. The declaration of the Noahic Covenant subjects humanity to a new test. Its distinctive feature is the institution, for the first time, of human government—the government of man by man. The highest function of government is the judicial taking of life. All other governmental powers are implied in that. It follows that the third dispensation is distinctively that of human government. Man is responsible to govern the world for God. That responsibility rested upon the whole race, Jew and Gentile, until the failure of Israel under the Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 28-30:1-10) brought the judgment of the Captivities, when "the times of the Gentiles" (See Lk. 21:24; Rev. 16:14) began, and the government of the world passed exclusively into Gentile hands (Dan. 2:36-45; Lk. 21:24; Acts 15:14-17). That both Israel and the Gentiles have governed for self, not God, is sadly apparent. The judgment of the confusion of tongues ended the racial testing; that of the captivities the Jewish; while the Gentile testing will end in the smiting of the Image (Dan. 2) and the judgment of the nations (Mt. 25:31-46). Fourth Dispensation: Promise Zu Genesis 12,1: "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: " "Und der HERR sprach zu Abram: Geh aus deinem Land und aus deiner Verwandtschaft und aus dem Haus deines Vaters in das Land, das ich dir zeigen werde." (12:1) The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18, note) made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19:8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex. 19:4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Gen. 12:1 to Ex. 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:15-18), but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3:19-29; 4:1-7). Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law. Fifth Dispensation: Law Zu Exodus 19,8: "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. " "Da antwortete das ganze Volk einmütig und sprach: Alles, was der HERR gesagt hat, wollen wir tun. Und Mose überbrachte dem HERRN die Worte des Volks." (19:8) The Fifth Dispensation: Law. This dispensation extends from Sinai to Calvary—from the Exodus to the Cross. The history of Israel in the wilderness and in the land is one long record of the violation of the law. The testing of the nation by law ended in the judgment of the Captivities, but the dispensation itself ended at the Cross. Man's state at the beginning (Ex. 19:1-4). His responsibility (Ex. 19:5, 6; Rom. 10:5). His failure (2 Ki. 17:7-17,19; Acts 2:22, 23). The judgment (2 Ki. 17:1-6, 20; 25:1-11; Lk. 21:20-24). Sixth Dispensation: Grace Zu Johannesevangelium 1,17: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. " "Denn das Gesetz wurde durch Mose gegeben, die Gnade und die Wahrheit ist durch Jesus Christus geworden." (1:17) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24,25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation (John 1:12, 13; 3:36; Mt. 21:37; 22:42; John 15:22,25; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 5:10-12). The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile (Acts 4:27). The predicted end of the testing of man under face is the apostasy of the professing church (see "Apostasy," 2 Tim. 3:1-8, note), and the resultant aocalyptic judgments. Seventh Dispensation: Fulness of Times Zu Epheserbrief 1,10: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: " "So wollte er die Fülle der Zeiten herbeiführen und in Christus alles zusammenfassen - alles im Himmel und alles auf Erden - in ihm." (1:10) The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. This, the seventh and last of the ordered ages which condition human life on the earth, is identical with the kingdom covenanted to David (2 Sam 7:8-17; Zech.-12:8, Summary; Lk. 1:31-33; 1 Cor. 15:24, Summary), and gathers into itself under Christ all past "times": The time of oppression and misrule ends by Christ taking His kingdom (Isa. 11:3, 4). The time of testimony and divine forbearance ends in judgment (Mt. 25:31-46; Acts 17:30,31; Rev. 20:7-15). The time of toil ends in rest and reward (2 Thes. 1:6, 7). The time of suffering ends in glory (Rom. 8:17, 18). The time of Israel's blindness and chastisement ends in restoration and conversion (Rom. 11:25-27; Ezk. 39:25-29). The times of the Gentiles end in the smiting of the image and the setting up of the kingdom of the heavens (Dan. 2:34, 35; Rev. 19:15-21). The time of creation's thraldom ends in deliverance at the manifestation of the sons of God (Gen. 3:17; Isa. 11:6-8 Rom. 8:19-21). [Quelle: The old Scofield study Bible : containing the Old and New Testament / ed. by C. I. Scofield. -- Standard ed., (1917 notes). New and improved ed. -- New York : Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. -- 1610 S. : maps. -- Nebent.: The Scofield study Bible. -- Originaltitel: The Scofield reference Bible. -- ISBN 0-19-527468-7. -- Zu den angegebenen Stellen. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}] [deutsche Quelle: Zürcher Bibel. - Zürich : Genossenschaft-Verl. der Zürcher Bibel, 2007. - 1340, 434, 165 S. : Kt. -- ISBN 978-3-85995-240-9]

14. Covenant Theology / Föderaltheologie

Covenant Theology oder Föderaltheologie erklärt das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Menschen anhand der verschiedenen Bündnisse, wobei es etwas unterschiedliche Meinungen gibt, ob es nur ein übergreifendes Bündnis gibt, in das die anderen Bündnisse eingeschlossen sind, oder eine Reihe von hintereinander folgenden Bündnissen.

Die Föderaltheologie geht zurück auf den schweizerischen Reformator Zwingli, der von dem Adam-Noah-Bund der Menschheit und dem Abraham-Christus-Bund der Kirche spricht. Gemäß dem Reformator Bullinger wird der Adam-Noah-Bund mit Abraham erneuert und mit der Gnade Christi gefüllt. Dieser Bund wird von Mose in Worte gefasst und von Christus vollendet. Melanchthon charakterisiert den Bund als gegenseitige Verpflichtung zwischen Gott und dem Täufling und er teilt den Bund auf in einen allgemeinen Bund mit der Schöpfung und einen speziellen Bund mit den Erwählten.

Allgemein werden drei Arten von Bund unterschieden:

1. der Bund der Werke, abgeschlossen mit Adam, dem ewiges Leben für seinen Gehorsam versprochen war

2. der Bund der Gnade: nachdem Adam nicht gehorsam war, schloss Gott einen Bund der Gnade mit Adam und der Menschheit

3. der Bund der Erlösung: durch Glaube können die Menschen erlöst und damit gerettet werden

Diese Theologie wird in der Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) vertreten. Dieses Glaubensbekenntnis gilt für die heutigen Presyterianer, Baptisten und Congregationalisten in den USA. Diese Idee des Bundes spielte eine wichtige Rolle in der Entstehungszeit der USA, so haben z.B. die puritanischen Congregationalisten sich gegen die Hierarchie der anglikanischen Kirchen gewehrt, indem sie Kirchen gründeten als Bund zwischen Gott und den Kirchenmitgliedern. Die Idee des Bundes wurde auch in das zivile und politische Leben eingebracht, denn so wie eine Kirche durch einen Bund zwischen Gott und Gläubigen gegründet werden kann, können sich auch die Einwanderer in einem Bund zusammentun, um eine Stadt in der neuen Welt zu gründen. So haben die Pilgerväter der Mayflower einen Mayflower Compact (1620) abgeschlossen, in dem sie einen Bund schlossen, um die erste Kolonie im nördlichen Teil von Virginia aufzubauen.

[vgl.: Jacob, P.: Bund IV. Föderaltheologie, dogmengeschichtlich. - In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. - 3. Aufl. - Bd. 1, 1957. - Sp. 1518f.; vgl.: Niles, Franklyn C.: Covenant theology. - In: Djupe, Paul A., Laura R. Olson: Encyclopedia of American religion and politics. - New York, NY : Facts on File, 2003. - ISBN 0-8160-4582-8. - S. 127]

15. Dominionism

Begründet wird dies mit dem alttestamentlichen Text in Genesis 1,26: " Und Gott sprach: Lasst uns Menschen machen als unser Bild, uns ähnlich. Und sie sollen herrschen über die Fische des Meers und über die Vögel des Himmels, über das Vieh und über die ganze Erde und über alle Kriechtiere, die sich auf der Erde regen." [Zürcher Bibel, 2007]

Im allgemeinen wird dieser Vers so interpretiert, dass Gott den Menschen die Herrschaft über die Erde gab. Eine weitergehende Auslegung besagt, dass Christen verantwortlich sind die ganze Welt dem Wort Gottes zu unterwerfen, d.h. dass die Christen bis zur Wiederkunft Christi die Herrschaft übernehmen.

In den USA ergeben sich dadurch selbstverständlich Auseinandersetzungen mit der Verfassung, die eine Trennung von Staat und Kirche vorschreibt.

Man unterscheidet zwei Arten von Dominionismus:

• den allgemeinen: er wird vor allem von Christian Right vertreten und hat seit den 70er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts zu Einflussnahme bei Wahlen geführt. (Die Themen waren insbesondere Abtreibung und Abschaffung des Schulgebets.) Man unterstützt die Republikanische Partei und besteht darauf, dass Amerika eine christliche Nation ist, weshalb die Christen auch die Kontrolle über politische und kulturelle Institutionen bekommen müssten.
• der theokratische Dominionismus auch als "Hard Dominionism" bezeichnet, versucht eine theokratische Form der Regierung einzuführen. Diese allerdings nur von kleinen Gruppen vertretene Bewegung ist ebenfalls seit den 70er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts aktiv. Die extremste Gruppe vertritt den Christian Reconstructionism, eine Bewegung, die das amerikanische Regierungsmodel durch ein juristisches und politisches Model ersetzen will, das auf dem Alten Testament bzw. dem Mosaischen Recht aufgebaut ist (s. unten)

[vgl.: Dominionism. In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

16. Reconstructionism (Christian)/ Wiederaufbaubewegung

Wie schon unter dem theokratischen Dominionismus erwähnt ist der Christian Reconstructionsm eine sehr extreme religiöse und politische Bewegung, die fordert, dass die Regierung eine christliche Herrschaft ist und sich an die alttestamentlichen Vorschriften hält. Es geht hier um die gesetzlichen Vorschriften, die in der Thora vorhanden sind. Diese christliche Bewegung darf nicht verwechselt werden mit der Bewegung Reconstructionist Judaism, eine jüdische Denomination, bei der man nicht genau weiß, ob sie als traditionalistisch oder als modern einzustufen ist.

Der christliche Reconstructionismus wendet sich gegen bestimmte Formen von religiöser Toleranz, wobei man sagt, dass man mit neuen Gesetzen nicht den Glauben regulieren will, sondern nur die Handlungen, die jeweils daraus folgen. Es geht dabei insbesondere um Prinzipien der Moral. Kritiker befürchten aber, dass es um die Einsetzung von Gottes Gesetzen im zivilen Leben geht.

Die Wiederaufbaubewegung wurde von Rousas John Rushdoony zusammen mit seinem Schwiegervater dem texanischen Nationalökonom Gary North gegründet und wendet sich gegen den säkularen Humanismus. Bei beiden geht es um die Oberhoheit Gottes, in deren Namen man eine christliche Zivilisation errichten, gegen den Satan ankämpfen und das Tausendjährige Reich entstehen lassen will. Wobei jetzt aber nicht gedacht ist, dass man selbst das Tausendjährige Reich beginnen lassen kann, sondern dass dies von Gott bewerkstelligt wird, indem er schlimme Katastrophen schickt, durch die der moderne Staat untergehen wird. Die Christen müssen sich vorbereiten und die Regierung übernehmen.

Diese Bewegung geht davon aus, dass

• die Trennung von Kirche und Staat beendet wird
• die Demokratie, die als abwegig angesehen wird, abgeschafft wird
• die Gesellschaft nach den Geboten der Bibel geordnet wird (u.a. Wiedereinführung der Sklaverei; Verbot der Geburtenkontrolle; Hinrichtung von Homosexuellen, Gotteslästerern, Hexen usw.; Steinigung und Züchtigung ungehorsamer Kinder)
• das Wirtschaftssystem kapitalistisch sein soll
• Sozialprogramme gestrichen werden sollen, denn damit unterstütze man nur Faulpelze

[Quelle: Armstrong, Karen: Im Kampf für Gott : Fundamentalismus in Christentum, Judentum und Islam. - München : Siedler, 2004. - 608 S. - Einheitssacht.: The Battle for God <dt.>. - ISBN 3-88680-769-X. - S. 501f.]

Bezeichnend ist das folgende Zitat (übersetzt):

"Christlicher Reconstructionism ist ein Ruf an die Kirche, dass ihre biblische Verantwortung wieder geweckt wird, dass sie die Erde zum Ruhme Gottes unterwerfe. Während man an der Priorität der individuellen Erlösung festhält, hält christlicher Reconstructionism auch daran fest, dass kulturelle Erneuerung notwendig ist und man erwartet, dass das Evangelium nach außen getragen wird, wie es Erfolg findet im Leben und den Herzen der Menschen. Deshalb hofft christlicher Reconstructionism darauf und arbeitet dafür, dass die gesellschaftlichen Institutionen nach dem biblischen Plan (blueprint) gestaltet werden."

"Christian Reconstructionism is a call to the Church to awaken to its biblical responsiblity to subdue the earth for the glory of God. While holding the priority of individual salvation, Christian Reconstruction also holds that cultural renewal is to be the necessary and expected outworking of the gospel as it progressively finds success in the lives and hearts of men. Christian Reconstruction therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a biblical blueprint."

[Quelle: Reformation Covenant Church, 1988. -- Zitiert in: Diamond, Sara: Spiritual warfare : the politics of the Christian right. -- Boston, MA : South End Press, ©1989. -- 292 S. -- ISBN 0896083616. -- S. 136]

17. Book of Revelation  / Offenbarung des Johannes / Apokalypse des Johannes

Abb.: Vision des Johannes: die sieben Leuchter und der Menschensohn / kolorierter Holzschnitt von Lucas Cranach d. Ä. (nach Albrecht Dürer) zur Apokalypse. -- In: Martin Luther: Das Newe Testament Deutzsch. -- Wittenberg: Melchior Lotter d. J., September 1522

Die Apokalypse in der Lutherübersetzung 1912 mit zahlreichen Abbildungen aus der Kunstgeschichte:

Johannesapokalypse in klassischen Comics / hrsg. von Alois Payer. -- URL:  http://www.payer.de/christentum/apokalypse.htm

Die Offenbarung des Johannes ist das einzige apokalyptische Buch im Neuen Testament. Man geht davon aus, dass diese Schrift während der Regierungszeit des Kaisers Domitian (81 - 96 n. Chr.) von einem Johannes auf der Insel Patmos geschrieben wurde, der den frühchristlichen Gemeinden bekannt war. Unter Kaiser Domitian gab es Christenverfolgungen und Verbannungen auf Inseln.

Die ersten drei Kapitel sind eine Art Rundschreiben an die sieben kleinasiatischen Gemeinden, zu dem sich Johannes auf Grund der Vision der sieben Leuchter und dem Menschensohn (vgl. das obige Bild) gedrängt sieht. Ab Kapitel 4 folgen die Visionen, die sich auf die Zukunft beziehen und die vor allem von Lesern in der USA auf reale Geschichtsereignisse übertragen werden. Einige versuchen daraus zu berechnen, dass die Endzeit heute nahe bevorsteht.

Zum Inhalt des Hauptteils:

"2. [...] Das Hauptstück beginnt mit einer Vision, die den Gottesdienst im Himmel beschreibt (c. 4), an dem außer Engeln und den vier kosmischen »Lebewesen«, d. h. den Grundkräften der geschaffenen Welt, auch die 24 Ältesten als Vertreter der Menschheit teilnehmen. Alles Folgende steht damit unter dem Zeichen der gemeinsamen Verehrung Gottes durch alle seine Geschöpfe. Das Lamm Gottes, das geschlachtet worden war, wird für würdig erfunden, die mit sieben Siegeln verschlossene Buchrolle zu öffnen, die Gott in seinen Händen hält: Der erhöhte Heiland hat das Vorrecht, Gottes Zukunftspläne nicht nur zu wissen, sondern auch auszuführen. Da c. 5 mit solchem Nachdruck den Heiland herausstellt, kann man annehmen, dass er nicht nur für das Öffnen der sieben Siegel, sondern auch weiterhin die maßgebliche Autorität ist. - Dem Aufbrechen der ersten vier Siegel in c. 6 entspricht das Kommen der apokalyptischen Reiter, die Elend über die Welt bringen. Das fünfte zeigt, wie den Seelen unter dem Altar, d. h. den Märtyrern des Gottesvolkes, Trost gebracht wird. Das sechste beschreibt in lebhaften Farben die Angst der Welt vor dem Zorn Gottes (ohne ein Zeichen von Reue). Einem Grundschema folgend, ist das sechste Ereignis (c. 7) eine Art Ruhepunkt vor der Entscheidung: Die Auserwählten werden versiegelt, um davor bewahrt zu werden, mit den Gottlosen zugleich unterzugehen. Das Öffnen des siebenten Siegels eröffnet die Reihe der göttlichen Drohgerichte, das Blasen der sieben Posaunen (c. 8; 9). Das Blasen der siebenten Posaune fällt zusammen mit dem Öffnen des himmlischen Heiligtums (11, 15-19). Wahrscheinlich deutet das auf den Tod Jesu und die Bildung der christlichen Gemeinde in Palästina hin. - In c. 12-15 folgen eine Reihe von Gesichten, die auf die letzten sieben Drohgerichte vorbereiten. Gottes Feind, der Teufel oder Drache, und seine Helfer, die »Tiere«, treten nun deutlich in die Erscheinung. - Gegenüber der Anmaßung politischer Mächte sieht man in c. 14 das Lamm wie einen Feldherrn auf dem Zionsberg stehen, umgeben von dem Heer seiner Getreuen. Engel verkünden der Welt das »ewige Evangelium«, den Fall Babylons und das Gericht, das der Menschensohn über die abgefallene Welt halten wird. Bevor das aber geschieht, wird in c. 15 der Tempel im Himmel geöffnet, ein Zeichen, dass Gottes Gnade allen zur Verfügung steht. Gegen die, die nicht gekommen sind, werden dann vom Tempel die Gerichtsengel ausgesandt. Das Gericht wird in c. 16 näher beschrieben als sieben Zornesschalen, die von sieben Engeln über die Erde ausgegossen werden. C. 17 schildert die Herrlichkeit der »großen Dirne«, die auf dem Rücken des Tieres sitzend über die Völker herrscht und sie verführt, an ihrem gotteslästerlichen Tun teilzunehmen, bis sie schließlich durch das Lamm besiegt wird. Die Bedeutung ihres Falles wird unterstrichen durch den großen Trauergesang, den in c. 18 ihre Verbündeten und Handelsgenossen anstimmen und dem in 19, 1-8 die himmlischen Scharen den Lobpreis Gottes zufügen. - Die Weltgeschichte tritt nun in ihr allerletztes Stadium ein. Der himmlische Ritter auf dem weißen Rosse tritt in c. 19 zum Endkampf gegen die Macht des Bösen und seine irdischen Verbündeten an und besiegt sie mit dem Schwerte, das aus seinem Munde hervorgeht, d. h. mit der Macht seiner Wahrheit. Satan wird für 1000 Jahre gefesselt (c. 20), die Gläubigen regieren mit Christus während dieser Zeit, und die entschlafenen Bekenner werden zu diesem Zwecke vom Tode auferweckt. Aber dann kommt es zum Aufstand von Gog und Magog und zu einer furchtbaren Entscheidungsschlacht, in deren Folge der Teufel und der Tod endgültig ihrer Macht beraubt werden. In einem gewaltigen Gericht wird der gesamten Menschheit ihr Schicksal zugemessen; wessen Name nicht im Buche des Lebens gefunden wird, wird mit ewigem Tod bestraft. - Die beiden letzten Kapitel beschreiben die Herrlichkeit und Schönheit der ewigen Gottesstadt. Der Himmel wird mit einer erneuerten Erde vereint (c. 21). Von nun an wohnt Gott bei seinem Volke, und niemand braucht mehr ein Übel zu fürchten. In einem Schlussschnitt (22, 6-21) wird die Wahrheit aller dieser Gesichte von einem Engel und von Jesus selbst bestätigt. Der Seher verwahrt sich daher gegen alle, die an seinem Buche irgend etwas ändern, und beschließt seinen Bericht mit den Worten: »Amen, komm, Herr Jesus!«" [Quelle: Piper, Otto Alfred (1891 - 1982): Johannesapokalypse. --  In: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG3). -- Bd. 3. --  Sp. 822ff. -- Nur ein Teil des Anfangs des ausführlichen Artikels]

18. Danielbuch

Abb.: Prophet Daniel. -- Glasfenster Dom Augsburg. -- 12. Jhdt.

Die Danielapokalypse Lutherübersetzung 1912 mit Abbildungen aus der Kunstgeschichte:

Die Danielapokalypse (Daniel 7 - 12) in klassischen Comics  / hrsg. von Alois Payer. -- Fassung vom 2005-03-20. -- URL:  http://www.payer.de/christentum/danielapokalypse.htm  

Neben der Johannesoffenbarung, der Apokalypse des Neuen Testaments,  ist für die Weltdeutung der Fundamentalisten das Danielbuch, die Apokalypse des Alten Testaments, am Wichtigsten. Diese alttestamentliche Apokalypse hat die Johannesapokalypse stark beeinflusst und wurde später für chiliastische Bewegungen wie z.B. die Adventisten oder die Zeugen Jehovas fast zum Mittelpunkt der Bibel. Das Schema von den vier Weltreichen (Babylonier, Meder und Perser als ein Reich zusammengenommen, Griechen und Römer) wurde von der Geschichtswissenschaft aufgenommen. Das Danielbuch spielt im Zusammenhang mit dem letzten Irakkrieg aber auch mit einem möglichen Krieg gegen den Iran eine Rolle.

Man geht heute davon aus, dass das Buch Daniel in einem längeren Zeitraum entstanden ist oder zumindest Texte aus mehreren Jahrhunderten gesammelt hat, so können die Legenden in Kapitel 1 - 6 in der Zeit der persischen Herrschaft (539 - 331 v. Chr.) entstanden sein, obwohl nicht alle Angaben mit den historischen Fakten, die man kennt, übereinstimmen. Einige Kapitel geben die Erfahrungen mit der griechischen Herrschaft durch Alexander dem Grossen (Eroberung des Orients 332 v. Chr.) wieder, andere beziehen sich auf die Zeit der Unterdrückung der Juden  unter dem griechischen Herrscher Antiochus IV. (nach 168 v. Chr.). Dass das Buch sehr spät entstanden ist, kann man auch daran erkennen, dass es sehr spät in den Kanon der biblischen Bücher aufgenommen wurde und dass einige Kapitel in aramäischer Sprache abgefasst sind.

[vgl. die Einleitung zum Danielbuch in der Zürcher Bibel 2007. - S. 1218ff.]

Die fundamentalistische Auslegung geht davon aus, dass Daniel hunderte von Jahren, bevor diese Weltreiche existierten,  Entstehen und Fallen von Assyrien, Meder und Perser mit Elam, Griechenland, das west- und oströmische Reich, die Europäischen Nationen vorausgesehen hat, und dass das wunderbarerweise mit den historischen Fakten übereinstimmt.

[vgl. den Kommentar zum 2. Kapitel des Danielbuchs in der Evidence Bible 2003. - S. 1082]

"Danielbuch 1. Das Danielbuch zerfällt inhaltlich in zwei Teile: I (Kap. 1-6) enthält sechs Erzählungen von Daniel und seinen Freunden, II (Kap. 7-12) vier Gesichte Daniels. In I ist von Daniel in dritter Person die Rede, in II redet er selber. Das Mittelstück 2, 4b - 7, 28 ist aramäisch geschrieben. a) Die Erzählungen. Einleitungsweise berichtet Kap. 1, wie Daniel und seine 3 Gefährten, an Nebukadnezars Hof als Pagen ausgebildet, den jüdischen Speisegesetzen treu bleiben und doch alle anderen an Weisheit übertreffen. - Kap. 2: Daniel allein weiß dem König seinen schreckhaften Traum zu sagen und zu deuten: die Statue aus viererlei Metall, die ein Stein zu Fall bringt, bedeutet 4 Reiche, die, an Macht immer geringer, aufeinander folgen, bis die Herrschaft auf ein himmlisches Reich übergeht. Der König erhebt Daniel und die Freunde zu hohen Ämtern. - Die 3 Freunde verweigern einem vom König aufgestellten Bilde die Huldigung und werden in einen brennenden Ofen geworfen. Ein Engel gesellt sich zu ihnen; das Feuer lässt sie unversehrt. Wieder muss der König die Macht des Judengottes anerkennen (3, 1-30). - Nebukadnezar träumt von einem stolzen Baum, der bis auf den Stumpf abgehauen wird. Wieder kann Daniel allein den Traum deuten, und so erfüllt er sich am König: von Wahnsinn befallen lebt er 7 Jahre wie das Vieh, bis er in sich geht und sein Verstand zurückkehrt (3, 31 - 4, 31). - König Belsazar treibt bei einem Gelage mit den heiligen Geräten aus dem Tempel zu Jerusalem seinen Spott. Da malt eine Hand eine geheimnisvolle Inschrift an die Wand, die keiner lesen kann ( Mene Tekel). Die Königinmutter erinnert an Daniel. Er liest sie und deutet sie auf den nahen Untergang des babylonischen Reiches. In jener Nacht wird die Stadt von den Persern erobert und Belsazar getötet (5, 1 - 6, 1). - Neidische Höflinge veranlassen, dass der König eine Bestimmung erlässt, gegen die Daniel sich vergehen muss. Er wird in die Löwengrube geworfen, aber die Löwen tun ihm kein Leid. Der König lässt ihn heraus und gibt seine Verleumder den Tieren preis (6, 2 - 29). b) Die Gesichte. Aus dem Meer steigen nacheinander 4 gewaltige Tiere, am furchtbarsten das letzte mit seinen 10 Hörnern. Drei fallen einem kleinen 11. Horn zum Opfer, das vermessene Reden führt. Ein Hochbetagter hält Gericht. Das 4. Tier wird getötet, den andern die Herrschaft genommen und einem Menschenähnlichen (»wie eines Menschen Sohn« wörtlich und bei Luther) zu ewigem Besitz gegeben. Ein Engel deutet Daniel die Tiere auf 4 Reiche, die Hörner auf Könige. 31/2 Zeiten wird das Schreckensregiment jenes letzten Königs dauern, bis die Herrschaft an das Volk der Heiligen des Höchsten übergeht (Kap. 7). - Am Fluss bei Susa sieht Daniel einen zweigehörnten Widder nach Westen, Süden und Norden stoßen. Ein von Westen kommender Ziegenbock mit einem großen Horn wirft ihn zu Boden und gewinnt große Macht. Anstelle des einen Horns treten 4 andere. Aus einem von diesen geht ein kleines hervor, dessen Wüten 2300 Abend-Morgen dauern soll. Der Engel Gabriel deutet die beiden Tiere auf das Perser- und Griechenreich, die Hörner auf Könige (Kap. 8). - Daniel grämt sich wegen der Weissagung der »Schrift« (Jer 25, 11 f.; 29, 10), die die Verödung Jerusalems auf 70 Jahre begrenzt, da diese längst vorbei sind. Gabriel vermittelt ihm die Offenbarung, die 70 Jahre seien 70 Jahrwochen, zerfallend in 7+62+1 »Wochen«. Die letzte Woche wird eine Zeit größter Not sein: das Heiligtum entweiht und der Kult für eine halbe Woche eingestellt (Kap. 9). - Ein Engel enthüllt Daniel den künftigen Geschichtsverlauf: von den letzten Perserkönigen, dem großen Griechenkönig, dem Zerfall seines Reiches, dem Kampf zwischen dem »König des Nordens« und dem »König des Südens« bis zum letzten Nordkönig, der nach furchtbarem Frevel am Heiligtum und am Gottesvolk im Hl. Lande ein Ende mit Schrecken nehmen wird. Es wird eine Bedrängnis sein wie nie zuvor; aber viele werden auferstehen. Wieder ist der Termin 31/2 Zeiten, die in 12, 11 f. genauer auf 1290 und 1335 Tage bestimmt werden (Kap. 10-12). 2. Jüdische wie christliche Tradition lässt das Buch, das keine ausdrückliche Angabe über den Verfasser macht, von Daniel, dem Seher am babylonischen Hof, verfasst sein. Schwerwiegende Gründe erweisen diese Tradition als falsch: a) Gerade für die Zeit, wo Daniel gelebt hätte, birgt es grobe Verstöße gegen bessere Überlieferung: eine Einnahme Jerusalems im 3. Jahr Jojakims 1, 1 f. = 606/05; Belsazar als Sohn und Nachfolger Nebukadnezars 5, 1 f.; 7, 1 (der geschichtliche B. war Sohn Naboneds, des letzten Babylonierkönigs, und selbst nie König); »Darius der Meder« als Nachfolger Belsazars 6, 1, Sohn des Xerxes 9, 1 und Vorgänger des Kyros 6, 29. - b) »Chaldäer« im späteren Sinn als »Weise« 2, 2. 4 war unmöglich, solange das Reich der Chaldäer bestand. - c) Späte sprachliche Merkmale des Hebräischen wie des Aramäischen. - d) Theologisch die ausgebildete Engellehre, der Auferstehungsglaube, die Vermeidung des Jahwenamens. - e) Die Stellung nicht unter den Propheten, sondern unter den »Schriften«, dem jüngsten Teil des hebr. Kanon; in der Gemeinschaft von Qumran ist das Danielbuch zwar bekannt, galt aber wohl noch nicht als kanonisch (s. 3). - f) Die späte literarische Bezeugung: noch nicht im »Lob der Väter« bei Jesus Sirach 44 ff. (um 180 v. Chr.); zuerst in Sibyllinen 3, 388 ff. (um 140) und 1 Makk 2, 59 f. (um 110). 3. Wird damit eine Entstehung im 6. Jh. unmöglich, so weist das Buch selber in das 2. Jh. Die 4 Reiche von Kap. 2 sind nicht mit der kirchlichen Tradition auf das babylonische, medisch-persische, griechische und römische zu deuten, sondern auf das babylonische, medische, persische und griechische; denn nur auf Alexanders Reich passt der rasche Zerfall nach anfänglicher Stärke. Dieses ist auch mit dem 4. Tier in Kap. 7 und dem Ziegenbock in Kap. 8 gemeint. Und sobald man in Kap. 11 für den »Nordkönig« den betreffenden Seleuciden, für den »Südkönig« den betreffenden Ptolemäer einsetzt, wird aus der angeblichen Weissagung eine Geschichtsdarstellung der beiden Diadochenreiche bis hinab auf Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, dessen Regierung (11, 21-39) mit den beiden ägyptischen Feldzügen, der Verfolgung der jüdischen Religion und der Einführung griechischer Kulte geschildert wird, ganz wie es 1. 2 Makk und die Profanhistoriker tun; ebenso ist Antiochus mit dem kleinen Horn gemeint. Hier überall geht es also nicht um erst künftige, sondern um geschehene Ereignisse. Nur was vom Ende dieses letzten Königs gesagt ist (11, 40-45, vgl. 8, 25b), stimmt nicht mehr mit dem bekannten Geschichtsverlauf überein. Von einem 3. Feldzug gegen Ägypten weiß die Geschichte nichts, und seinen Tod fand er nicht im Kampf um Jerusalem, sondern im fernen Osten. Mit 11, 40 geht die fingierte Weissagung somit in wirkliche über. Die Abfassung des Buches fällt danach zwischen die Entweihung des Tempels am 25. Kislew (= Dez.) 167, wo dort ein »Greuel der Verwüstung«, d. h. ein heidnischer Altar aufgestellt wurde (11, 31), und des Antiochus Tod 164. Auch die Wiederweihe des Tempels am 25. Kislew 164 in 8, 13 f., vgl. 1 Makk 4, 52 ff.; 2 Makk 10, 5, die nach einigen auch schon erlebt wäre, steht wohl noch aus, da nach 9, 27 die Wiederaufnahme des Kultes mit dem Ende der Not und dem Sturz des Tyrannen zusammenfällt (vgl. 7, 25; 12, 7). Die für die große Wende angegebenen Fristen führen, vom Datum der Entweihung an gerechnet, in den März (8, 14: 1150 Tage), Juni (7, 25; 9, 27; 12, 7: 31/2 Jahre = 1260 Tage), Juli (12, 11: 1290 Tage) und September (12, 12: 1335 Tage) des Jahres 163. Ob dabei von verschiedenen Zeitpunkten an gezählt oder sonst verschieden berechnet ist oder ein anfänglich ins Auge gefasster Termin bei Ausbleiben der Erfüllung immer wieder hinausgeschoben wurde, ist schwer zu entscheiden. Mindestens für 12, 11 f. möchte man letzteres annehmen. - Diese zuerst vom Neuplatoniker Porphyrius vertretene Erkenntnis, dass das Danielbuch aus dem 2. Jh. v. Chr. stammt, hat sich im Lauf des 19. Jh.s mehr und mehr durchgesetzt. Die Auffindung von Fragmenten und Varianten (RB 63, 1956, 407 ff.) desselben in den Höhlen von Qumran (RB 63, 1956, 55. 58) verbietet solch späten Ansatz nicht, zumal die Daniel-Fragmente von Qumran zeigen, dass das Danielbuch im 1. Jh. v. Chr. noch nicht kanonisiert war. Dass im einzelnen Schwierigkeiten bleiben, liegt an seinem Charakter und daran, dass Geschichte, Chronologie und Kalender (lunisolar mit willkürlicher Schaltung; vgl. Chronologie: III, 1. 3) jener Zeit uns nur mangelhaft bekannt sind. [...] 6. In den Gesichten ist z. T. mythisches Überlieferungsgut verarbeitet. Das Traumgesicht in Kap. 2 verwendet die aus Hesiods »Werken und Tagen« und dem persischen Avesta bekannte Vorstellung von den 4 Weltreichen. - In Kap. 8 sind der Widder und der Ziegenbock als Symbole für Persien und Griechenland durch die astrologische Geographie des Altertums gegeben, nach der jedes Land einem Tierkreisbild unterstand: Persien dem Widder, Syrien (das Seleucidenreich als Vertreter des ganzen Griechenreiches) dem Steinbock. - Bei dem schwierigen Kap. 7 fragt es sich, ob die Tiervision (V. 2-7) ursprünglich selbständig war und einen nichterhaltenen Mythus vertritt - die 10 + 1 Hörner sind sicher zeitgeschichtlich zu verstehen -; doch fällt der Bär aus der Reihe altorientalischer Fabelwesen heraus. Im anderen Fall kann der babylonische Chaosmythus zugrunde liegen, wobei das eine Tier den 4 Reichen zuliebe in 4 Tiere aufgespalten wäre. Hinter dem »Hochbetagten« muss, da Jahwe sonst nie so gezeichnet ist, eine fremdländische Gottheit stecken. Ungeklärt ist auch die Herkunft des »Menschen« ( Menschensohn), der in V. 27 dann auf »das Volk der Heiligen des Höchsten«, d. h. das Israel der Zukunft umgedeutet wird (ursprünglich sind die »Heiligen des Höchsten« wohl himmlische Mächte); der hier inthronisierte Gott dürfte ursprünglich auch der Besieger der feindlichen Mächte gewesen sein. - Ganz fehlt solcher Hintergrund den beiden letzten Gesichten. Bei Kap. 9 geht es um die rechte Deutung einer scheinbar unerfüllten Weissagung. Bei Kap. 10-12 ist das in 10, 1 erwähnte Gesicht nicht näher beschrieben; II, 2 ff. entsprechen der sonstigen Deutung, geben aber ohne deren besondere Form selber eine weit ausholende Geschichtsweissagung. [...]" Quelle: Baumgartner, Walter (1887 - 1970): Danielbuch. -- In: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG3). -- Bd. 2. -- 1958. --  Sp 26 ff.]

19. Political Correctness (PC)

Abb.: Einbandtitel
{Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}

Political correctness is the alteration of language to redress perceived injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often appears in the form politically correct or PC, and is generally used mockingly or disparagingly. One stated aim of politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people because of their differences or handicaps. Proponents of political correctness argue that they wish to bring unconscious biases into awareness, allowing us to make a more informed choice about our language and making us aware of things different people might find offensive. Two common examples of this practice are to use the word disabled rather than crippled, and mentally ill rather than crazy. However, opponents of political correctness often claim that the new terms are awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation and disability, religion and political views. The term "special population groups" can be applied to any groups without detailing what makes the groups "special". Part of the PC programme, however, is an attempt to make discriminatory thought difficult. The theory goes far beyond the replacement of derogatory terms with value neutral terms and instead addresses the very labelling and grouping of people. The argument goes like this: 1) Certain people have their rights/opportunities/freedoms restricted due to their categorisation as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype. 2) This categorisation is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology. 3) By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think consciously about how they describe someone. 4) Once labelling is a conscious activity, the individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership of a group, will become more apparent. In scientific study, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language influences thought was first developed by Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf. While few support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong form, many linguists accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. Their work remains controversial. The first documented published use of the term political correctness [1] (http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/origins-of-political-correctness.html) was in 1912 in Chapter 1 of Senator Robert La Follette's autobiography[2] (http://memory.loc.gov/gc/lhbum/07510/0045.tif). Speaking of his education at the University of Wisconsin, he says "In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name". La Follette later ran for President in 1924 on the Progressive Party platform. The University of Wisconsin's[3] (http://www.probe.org/docs/pc-educ.html) Madison campus has often been cited as the birthplace of political correctness. Donna Shalala [4] (http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1993/LT930705.html), former Secretary of Health & Human Services in the Clinton administration, and University of Wisconsin Chancellor, has been called the founder of political correctness. Here is an extended excerpt of the passage: It is difficult, indeed, to overestimate the part which the university has played in the Wisconsin revolution. For myself, I owe what I am and what I have done largely to the inspiration I received while there. It was not so much the actual courses of study which I pursued; it was rather the spirit of the institution--a high spirit of earnest endeavor, a spirit of fresh interest in new things, and beyond all else a sense that somehow the state and the university were intimately related, and that they should be of mutual service. The guiding spirit of my time, and the man to whom Wisconsin owes a debt greater than it can ever pay, was its President, John Bascom [6] (http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/john-bascom-problems-in-philosophy.html). I never saw Ralph Waldo Emerson, but I should say that John Bascom was a man of much his type, both in appearance and in character. He was the embodiment of moral force and moral enthusiasm; and he was in advance of his time in feeling the new social forces and in emphasizing the new social responsibilities. His addresses to the students on Sunday afternoons, together with his work in the classroom, were among the most important influences in my early life. It was his teaching, iterated and reiterated, of the obligation of both the university and the students to the mother state that may be said to have originated the Wisconsin idea in education. He was forever telling us what the state was doing for us and urging our return obligation not to use our education wholly for our own selfish benefit, but to return some service to the state. That teaching animated and inspired hundreds of students who sat under John Bascom. The present President of the university, Charles R. Van Hise, a classmate of mine, was one of the men who has nobly handed down the tradition and continued the teaching of John Bascom. In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy the name, but what we somehow did get, and largely from Bascom, was a proper attitude toward public affairs. And when all is said, this attitude is more important than any definite views a man may hold. History The term politically correct and the accompanying movement rose to broad usage in the early 1980s, but the term itself is actually much older, suggesting that such linguistic sensitivity is nothing new. The earliest cited usage of the term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention [...]. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct. Another example of earlier usage is from a passage of H. V. Morton's In the Steps of St. Paul (1936): "To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But Galatians, a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium." In terms of modern popular usage, it is alleged that the term politically correct started as a label jokingly used to describe one's over-commitment to various left-wing political causes. Use of the terms PC and politically correct declined in the late 1990s, and it is now mostly seen in comedy or as a political slur with questionable meaning. Recently there are moves by some minority groups to "reclaim" terms which they once considered offensive. Therefore dyke and fag are now acceptable terms according to some homosexuals. Additionally, the PC movement sometimes has to confront the fact that some of the groups it aims to protect have a much different perspective than the mainstream culture from which political correctness sprang. For example, deaf culture has always considered the label deaf as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The politically correct term now often substituted for the term deaf, hearing-impaired, while less offensive from the perspective of the mainstream culture, is considered highly derogatory by the deaf culture supposedly being saved from derision and discomfort. However, politically correct ideas are still seen frequently influencing aspects of policy-making that attempt to be inoffensive in terminology. They are also seen in attempts at "equalizing" peoples' differences, such as in controversial affirmative action policies, which some argue exaggerate instead of smooth out differences. One example of where political correctness has entered into policy-making is in the purchasing of school textbooks. In the United States, public schools are subject to bias and sensitivity guidelines, which affect the purchasing of school textbooks. Also, in an example of how "equalization" is attempted by such policies, these guidelines are used in the construction of tests that attempt to be fair by being customized to specific ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Within the industry, this is a subject of considerable debate at present, with most parties agreeing that the quality of American public school textbooks is much lower than that of other industrialized nations. Critics believe that the method of determining content is severely hindered by the efforts of either the politically correct, politically conservative, or more often, both. Another ironic example is the official governmental French Canadian translation by the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise (Quebec Office for French Language) of the term "political correctness" as "nouvelle orthodoxie" (New Orthodoxy), which is criticised as being itself politically correct, by evacuating the notions of Rectitude (its normative and coercive aspect) and Politics (its power play aspect) from the term. Controversy The term political correctness is itself fraught with controversy. Some believe that the use of specialized, politically correct jargon creates a separate status for the groups referred to, and thus prevents integration and acceptance while perpetuating stereotypes. For example, using word variants such as the term "poetess" could be interpreted as denoting male practitioners to be the norm, and it has been argued this perpetuates male dominance in society [7] (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html). However, the core idea behind political correctness is that the terms are primarily designed to treat inferiors as if they had no noticeable problems. In politics, self-described political progressives never used the expression widely and have now stopped using it almost entirely as it has become a popular jeer against them. Critics often point out the similarity between political correctness and Orwellian ideas such as newspeak and thoughtcrime, as well as communist and fascist propaganda. Advocates argue that what they see as defending victims of repression or discrimination does not itself constitute intolerance. Critics also argue that advocacy of political correctness amounts to censorship and is a danger to free speech, in that the only opinions tolerated by political correctness are opinions coherent with Leftist ideology. Such critics usually use the term "politically correct" in a manner that implies that liberals themselves actually embrace the term. In recent years, "political correctness" has come to be used, seriously by some and jokingly by others, in protest against policies that some see as seeking conformance with Left-wing beliefs regarding cultural change. In addition, the term is also frequently used by conservatives in a broader sense to characterize any of a numerous set of beliefs they disagree with, usually when these ideas refer to government controls of what could be interpreted as "thought control", freedom of expression or censorship. The Left usually disagree with this interpretation, accusing the Right of sustaining intolerance by tolerating the expression of politically incorrect views. A recent situation at the Los Angeles Times is very illustrative of the conflicts regarding politically correct speech. A news review of an opera included the term pro-life in the sense of life-affirming. However it is Times policy to use the term anti-abortion in lieu of the term "pro-life", therefore the term was changed, even though the meaning was entirely different. "Anti-abortion" has connotations alluding to a challenge to women's rights, while "pro-life" symbolizes an active defense of the unborn children's right to life. Thus the two terms are not interchangeable, and politically charged [8] (http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001477.html). Another significant example is the cancellation of the television talk show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. Maher resigned as host of PI in 2002 after making a controversial on-air remark, in which he objected to President Bush and others calling the 9/11 terrorists cowardly: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." Maher later apologized for the comment, saying, "In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong". In the sensitive aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the remark was deemed too controversial for parts of the public and some financial supporters, and offensive to conservatives. Although some pundits supported Maher, pointing out the distinction between physical and moral cowardice, companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, quickly causing the show to cost more than it returned. The show was subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2002. Another example in Canada is a segment in Hockey Night in Canada called "Coaches Corner". The star of the segment, Don Cherry, is known for his controversial viewpoints within the show concerning politics, from criticizing Quebec provincial lawmakers complaining about too many Canadian flags in the 1998 Winter Olympics, to his outright support for the US in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Within the sporting arena, he is criticized by what he called "tree-huggers" for advocating fighting in hockey, after the Todd Bertuzzi incident in March 2004, he said that: "if you have a beef with someone, you do it face to face." In 2004, when talking about hockey players wearing visors, he said that: "the only people who wear visors are Europeans and (Quebecois) French guys." After that installment, the federal government agency in charge of official bilingualism received complaints regarding Cherry's statments. Not wanting to fire him due to his popularity, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation responded by putting a 7-second tape delay on the show. Cherry's claims were somewhat proven correct when the Globe and Mail released the results of their research that more French Canadian hockey players wear visors. Another example related to Quebec, considered by many a hotbed of political correctness, is the infamous CHOI FM/Radio-X affair, in which the province's sole and only conservative radio station was shut down by the Canadian CRTC for stating reportedly offensive and conservative comments on the air. The changing of terminology as a result of political correctness, for example "visually impaired" rather than "blind" or "vertically challenged" instead of "short" among many other examples, have led to accusations that those who follow political correctiveness are ushering in the era of Newspeak, a bowdlerized form of English predicted by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four which eliminates any words that might conceivably have meanings against the state. (However, Orwell's vision is of a language reduced to very few words, while most examples of politically correct jargon are much longer than the words being replaced). Comedian Billy Connolly, in one of his performance videos (Live 1994), called Politically Correct "the language of cowardice." Satirical use The idea of political correctness also has a very interesting history of use in satire and comedy. One of the earlier, and most well-known, satirical takes on this movement can be found in the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, in which traditional fairy tales are rewritten from an exaggerated, politically correct viewpoint. The roles of good and evil in these PC stories are often the reverse of those in the original versions. For example, Hansel, Gretel and their father are evil, and the witch is good in the politically correct version of Hansel and Gretel. The practice of satirizing so-called politically correct speech indeed took on a life of its own in the 1990s, though its popularity in today's media has largely declined. Part of what it is to understand the meaning of political correctness is to be familiar with satirical portrayals of political correctness, and to understand them as such. Such portrayals are sometimes exaggerations of what actual politically correct speech looks like. For example, in a satirical example of so-called political correctness speech, the sentence "The fireman put a ladder up against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat" might look like this: The firefighter (who happened to be male, but could just as easily have been female) abridged the rights of the cat to determine for itself where it wanted to walk, climb, or rest, and inflicted his own value judgments in determining that it needed to be 'rescued' from its chosen perch. In callous disregard for the well-being of the environment, and this one tree in particular, he thrust the mobility disadvantaged-unfriendly means of ascent known as a 'ladder' carelessly up against the tree, marring its bark, and unfeelingly climbed it, unconcerned how his display of physical prowess might injure the self-esteem of those differently-abled. He kidnapped and unjustly restrained the innocent animal with the intention of returning it to the person who claimed to 'own' the naturally free animal. The above text admixes the most radical versions of several movements or theories. In fact, almost any politically correct speaker would most likely be perfectly satisfied with "The firefighter put a ladder against the tree, climbed it, and rescued the cat." However, the term firefighter is preferred to fireman for reasons other than political correctness. A firefighter puts out fires; a fireman can just as well mean a stoker, who tends the furnace in a steam locomotive. Examples Invalid (a long obsolete term) became disabled, then became handicapped, then became disabled again, then became people with disabilities (the emphasis being on "people"), then became differently abled, then became physically challenged (the current term). In the United States, blacks became Negroes, then became blacks again, then became Afro-Americans, then became people of color, then became African-Americans (the current term). Eskimo, a word that has long been viewed as pejorative by the people it refers to, has been increasingly been replaced by more specific terms (for example, Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut). Somewhat confusingly, Inuit is now often given the same broad meaning as Eskimo, despite the fact that the Yupik and Aleut peoples, among others, do not consider themselves Inuit. Chairman was replaced by chairperson (or president or some other terms). The elderly became senior citizens. Old person became older person. Indians became Native Americans in the United States. Similarly, they became known in Canada as First Nations or aboriginal peoples. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

20. Secular Humanism

Abb.: Logo des Secular Humanism

Unter den Fundamentalisten ist es üblich gegen den säkularen Humanismus zu kämpfen, denn diesem wird ein unmoralischer Einfluss auf die Gesellschaft zugeschrieben. Die Weltanschauung des Secular Humanism wird seit den 30er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts stärker und wird vertreten u.a. von Atheisten, Agnostikern, Freidenkern und Skeptikern. Es handelt sich um eine sozial motivierte Bewegung, die sich vor allem für die Religionsfreiheit insbesondere für die Trennung von Kirche und Staat einsetzt. Wichtig ist dabei, dass der Einfluss der Religion im zivilen Leben bekämpft wird. Praktisch zeigt sich das in den Auseinandersetzungen um die Schulen.

Beschreiben kann man die Bewegung etwa mit Folgendem:

• Menschliche Angelegenheiten und Probleme kann der Mensch lösen

• Wissenschaft, freie Rede, Meinungsfreiheit, Demokratie und künstlerische Freiheit gehören zusammen

• es gibt nicht Übernatürliches

• alle Dogmen und Ideologien müssen kritisch hinterfragt und getestet werden

"Secular Humanism More than anyone else, Francis A. Schaeffer [1912 - 1984] deserves the credit (or blame) for making "secular humanism" into a household term among conservative evangelicals. Although humanism was a Renaissance ideal that celebrated achievements in literature, arts, and learning as the fullest expression of humanity, which was in turn the apex of God's creation, humanism in the twentieth century took on less religious overtones. The Humanist Manifesto, issued in 1933 and again (with revisions) forty years later, asserted that "the traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species." Schaeffer seized upon this exclusion of the divine, arguing that rampant "secular humanism" would lead to moral relativism and ethical bankruptcy. In How Should We Then Live? and a spate of other books, Schaeffer portrayed secular humanism as a pernicious and diabolical force undermining the moral and spiritual fabric of America. His acolytes found evidence of secular humanism in everything from situation ethics to the proposed Equal Rights amendment to the Constitution, from evolution to gay rights. Following Schaeffer's lead, other conservative evangelical leaders issued a call to arms against secular humanism, and widespread popular fear of this menace animated the early efforts of the Religious Right." [Quelle: Balmer, Randall Herbert <1954 - >: Encyclopedia of evangelicalism. -- Rev. and expanded ed.  -- Waco, TX : Baylor University Press, ©2004.  -- viii, 781 S. ; 23 cm.  -- ISBN: 193279204X. -- s.v. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

"Debate Secular humanism often finds itself in conflict with Christian fundamentalism, especially over the issue of state involvement in religion. Corliss Lamont is the author of The Philosophy of Humanism, "...a work that has become a standard text and reference in the ongoing debate that swirls around secular humanism..." (The New York Times). One issue in particular, state funding (and thereby de-facto control) of institutions such as schools, managed by churches and other religious organisations, excites continual debate and controversy world-wide." [Quelle: Secular humanism. - In: Wikipedia. -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism. -- [Gekürzt]. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-30]

Eine Definition von fundmentalistischer Seite: "Simply defined, humanism is man's attempt to solve his problems independently of God. Since moral conditions have become worse and worse in direct proportion to humanism's influence, which has moved our country from a biblically based society to an amoral "democratic" society during the past forty years, one would think that humanists would realize the futility of their position. To the contrary, they treacherously refuse to face the reality of their failures, blaming them instead on traditional religion or ignorance or capitalism or religious superstitions." [Tim LaHaye. -- The battle for the mind. -- 1980. -- Zitiert in: Diamond, Sara: Not by politics alone : the enduring influence of the Christian Right. -- New York : Guilford Press, ©1998.  -- xiv, 280 S. ; 23 cm.  -- ISBN 1572303859. -- S. 70. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

21. First Amendment

Abb.: Der US Bill of Rights, bestehend aus den ersten 10 Amendments zur amerikanischen Verfassung [Bildquelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

Für das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche ist der erste Zusatzartikel zur amerikanischen Verfassung entscheidend. Der Zusatzartikel, der 1791 ratifiziert wurde, war nötig geworden, weil die neue Verfassung nicht genügende Garantien ziviler Freiheiten einschloss. Gemäß der Rechtssprechung der USA muss man zur Auslegung dieser Zusatzartikel die entsprechenden juristischen Fälle durcharbeiten - also Gerichtsurteile insbesondere die des Obersten Gerichtshofs seit der Ratifizierung. Für das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche sind in erster Linie die beiden ersten Punkte im ersten Zusatz wichtig:

1. Der Kongress darf keine Staatsreligion einführen oder eine bestimmte Religion bevorzugen. Dies wird zitiert als "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" (Einführungsklausel des ersten Zusatzartikels). Bei den späteren Gerichtsverfahren geht es dann u.a. um die Frage, ob und wie weit die Regierung religiöse Einrichtungen finanziell unterstützen darf. Auch die Frage, ob in öffentlichen Schulen ein Schulgebet gesprochen werden kann, musste in der letzten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts von Gerichten geklärt werden. Gegen die Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshof, dass ein Schulgebet nicht zulässig ist, gab und gibt es heftigen Widerstand von Seiten der christlichen Fundamentalisten.

2. Der Kongress darf die Freiheit der Religion nicht verbieten. Dies wird zitiert als "Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Es geht dabei um zwei Arten von Freiheit, nämlich die Freiheit zu glauben und die Freiheit (gemäß seiner Religion) zu handeln. Die Freiheit zu glauben, ist absolut und kann nicht eingeschränkt werden, wohingegen die Freiheit zu handeln, durchaus durch staatliche Gesetze eingeschränkt werden kann. So gibt es unterschiedliche Auslegungen, ob z.B. Schüler, die zu den Zeugen Jehovas gehören, gezwungen werden dürfen, das tägliche Gelübde (Pledge of Allegiance) mitzusprechen. Oder ob eine SiebenTag-Adventistin gezwungen werden kann, samstags zu arbeiten. Für das koschere Schlachten im Judentum gibt es Ausnahmeregelungen.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not: Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment") Prohibit the freedom of religion (the "free exercise of religion") Infringe the freedom of speech Infringe the freedom of the press Limit the right to assemble peaceably Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was proposed by Congress in 1789, to be ratified by the requisite number of states in 1791. As with the remaining Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was passed in order to answer protestations that the newly created Constitution did not include sufficient guarantees of civil liberties. The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress. Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the actions of the states. Text Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Court interpretation The Supreme Court has, over the years, established rules and tests for the constitutionality of legislation falling under the First Amendment. Lower courts tend to follow these rules in interpreting the text of the Constitution. Such classic phrases as "clear and present danger," "without redeeming social value," and "wall of separation between church and state" are not found in the text of the Constitution, but have been important in court decisions, and have entered the legal and popular culture. Because these tests do not appear in the text of the Constitution itself, several commentators, including Thomas Ladanyi and Barry Krusch, believe that such interpretations have functioned to re-write the amendment, creating what they refer to as the virtual first amendment. On the other hand, some commentators argue that if the Supreme Court establishes a rule or test when interpreting a constitutional provision, it does not actually alter the underlying document; rather, they suggest, the court merely creates a standard by which cases are to be judged. According to the commentators who favor the concept of a virtual text, the alternative view does not adequately account for the disparity between the text of the tests (i.e. the Miller obscenity test and dozens of others) and the text of the Constitution itself. Establishment of religion Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [siehe unten!] The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine," certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.") Free exercise of religion Main article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment [siehe unten!] The free exercise clause has often been interpreted to include two freedoms: the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act. The former liberty is absolute, while the latter often faces state restriction. Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group, was often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses permitted the Court to expound the free exercise clause. The Warren Court adopted a liberal view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation. Freedom of speech Sedition Remarkably, the Supreme Court did not consider a single case in which it was asked to strike down a federal law on the basis of the free speech clause until the twentieth century. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were never ruled upon by the Supreme Court, and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, not the First Amendment. After World War I, several cases involving laws limiting speech came before the Supreme Court. The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Under the Act, over two thousand prosecutions were commenced. For instance, one filmmaker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment because his portrayal of British soldiers in a movie about the American Revolution impugned the good faith of an American ally, the United Kingdom. The Sedition Act of 1918 went even farther, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government. The Supreme Court was for the first time requested to strike down a law violating the free speech clause in 1919. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had during the war published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act when it decided Schenck v. United States. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that "the question in every case is whether the words used are in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The "clear and present danger" test of Schenck was extended in Debs v. United States, again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a "clear and present danger" to the conscription system, but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a "natural tendency" to occlude the draft. Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger. Freedom of speech was influenced by anti-Communism during the Cold War. In 1940, Congress replaced the Sedition Act of 1918, which had expired in 1921. The Smith Act passed in that year made punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." The law was mainly used as a weapon against Communist leaders. The constitutionality of the Act was questioned in the case Dennis v. United States. The Court upheld the law in 1951 by a six-two vote (one Justice, Tom Clark, did not participate because he had previously ordered the prosecutions when he was Attorney General). Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson relied on Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test when he wrote for the majority. Vinson suggested that the doctrine did not require the government to "wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited," thereby broadly defining the words "clear and present danger." Thus, even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party's ideas, their speech was restricted by the Court. Dennis v. United States has never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but future decisions have in practice reversed the case. In 1957, the Court changed its interpretation of the Smith Act in deciding Yates v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas." Thus, the advocacy of abstract doctrine remains protected under the First Amendment. Only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren expanded free speech protections in the 1960s, though there were exceptions. In 1968, for example, the Court upheld a law prohibiting the mutilation of draft cards in United States v. O'Brien. The Court ruled that protesters could not burn draft cards because doing so would interfere with the "smooth and efficient functioning" of the draft system. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that free speech rights extended to students in school while deciding Tinker v. Des Moines. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black arm-bands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students ... are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State." The decision was arguably overruled, or at least undermined, by Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), in which the Court held a student could be punished for his speech before a public assembly. Also in 1969, the Court decided the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overruled Whitney v. California, a 1927 case in which a woman was imprisoned for aiding the Communist Party. Brandenburg effectively swept away Dennis as well, casting the right to speak freely of violent action and revolution in broad terms: "[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Some claim that Brandenburg essentially sets forth a reworded "clear and present danger" test, but the accuracy of such statements is hard to judge. The Court has never heard or decided a case involving seditious speech since Brandenburg was handed down. The divisive issue of flag burning as a form of protest came before the Supreme Court in 1989, as it decided Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson for burning the flag by a vote of five to four. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same with only three dissents. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. Most recently, in 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Obscenity The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscene or pornographic speech. The exact definition of obscenity and pornography, however, has changed over time. Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that although he could not define pornography, he "kn[ew] it when he s[aw] it." When it decided Rosen v. United States in 1896, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin. The Hicklin standard defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." Thus, the standards of the most sensitive members of the community were the standards for obscenity. In 1957, the Court ruled in Roth v. United States that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California in 1973. Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in 1982. The Court felt that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. Possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Libel, slander, and private action The American prohibition on defamatory speech or publications—slander and libel—traces its origins to English law. The nature of defamation law was vitally changed by the Supreme Court in 1964, while deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The New York Times had published an advertisement indicating that officials in Montgomery, Alabama had acted violently in suppressing the protests of African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. The Montgomery Police Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the $500,000 judgment against the Times. Justice William J. Brennan suggested that public officials may sue for libel only if the publisher published the statements in question with "actual malice," a difficult standard to meet. The actual malice standard applies to both public officials and public figures, including celebrities. Though the details vary from state to state, private individuals normally need only to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. As the Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), opinions cannot be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that a lawyer is a bad one, but not permissible to declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact. More recently, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court backed off from the protection from "opinion" announced in Gertz. The court in Milkovich specifically held that there is no wholesale exemption to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit. In 1988, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell extended the "actual malice" standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a ruling which protected a parodic caricature. In the ruling, "actual malice" was described as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true." Ordinarily, the First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of defamation suits is thus sometimes considered part of a broader trend in U.S. jurisprudence away from the strict state action requirement, and into the application of First Amendment principles when private actors invoke state power. Likewise, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a rule of law that often prohibits the application of antitrust law to statements made by competitors before public bodies: a monopolist may freely go before the city council and urge the denial of its competitor's building permit without being subject to Sherman Act liability. This principle is being applied to litigation outside the antitrust context, including state tort suits for intentional interference with business relations and "SLAPP Suits." Similarly, some states have adopted, under their protections for free speech, the Pruneyard doctrine, which prohibits private property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude political speakers and petition-gatherers. This doctrine has been rejected as a matter of federal constitutional law, but is meeting growing acceptance as a matter of state law. Political speech The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Act in Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. The Court affirmed some parts of the Act and rejected others. The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." At the same time, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech." Further rules on campaign finance were scrutinized by the Court when it determined McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in 2003. The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a law that introduced several new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to finance certain election-related advertisements. At the same time, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both, further stating that a "provision place[d] an unconstitutional burden on the parties' right to make unlimited independent expenditures." The Supreme Court also ruled that the provision preventing minors from making political contributions was unconstitutional, relying on the precedent on the Tinker case. For additional details, see campaign finance reform. Free speech zones came into existence soon after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as part of George W. Bush's security campaign. Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations where the president is to pass through or speak at. Officials target those who carry anti-Bush signs (and sometimes pro-Bush signs) and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone. Protesters who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used federal law was brought up that says that "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States" is a crime. Involuntary commitment A small minority has questioned whether involuntary commitment laws, when the diagnosis of mental illness leading, in whole or in part, to the commitment, was made to some degree on the basis of the speech or writings of the committed individual, violates the right of freedom of speech of such individuals. The First Amendment implications of involuntary psychiatric drugging have also been questioned. Though the District Court in Mills v. Rogers 457 U.S. 291 (1982) found that "whatever powers the Constitution has granted our government, involuntary mind control is not one of them," this finding was not of precedential value, and the Supreme Court ruling was essentially inconclusive. Press Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law. Restrictions, however, have been struck down if they are aimed at the political message or content of newspapers. Taxation of the press The Government retains the right to tax newspapers, just as it may tax other commercial products. Generally, however, taxes that focus exclusively on newspapers have been found unconstitutional. In Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936) the Court invalidated a state tax on newspaper advertising revenues. Similarly, some taxes that give preferential treatment to the press have been struck down. In 1987, for instance, the Court invalidated an Arkansas law exempting "religious, professional, trade and sports journals" from taxation since the law amounted to the regulation of newspaper content. In 1991, deciding Leathers v. Medlock, the Supreme Court found that states may treat different components of the media differently, for instance by taxing cable television but not newspapers. The Court found that "differential taxation of speakers, even members of the press, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the tax is directed at, or presents the danger of suppressing, particular ideas." Content regulation The courts have rarely treated content-based regulation of the press with any sympathy. In Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo (1971), the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsiblity, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish. Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis. Petition and assembly The right to petition the government has been interpreted as extending to petitions of all three branches: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary. The Supreme Court has interpreted "redress of grievances" broadly; thus, it is possible for one to request the government to exercise its powers in furtherance of the general public good. However, a few times Congress has directly limited the right to petition. During the 1790s, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, punishing opponents of the Federalist Party; the Supreme Court never ruled on the matter. In 1835 the House of Representatives adopted the "Gag Rule," barring abolitionist petitions calling for the end of slavery. The Supreme Court did not hear a case related to the rule, which was in any event abolished in 1840. During World War I, individuals petitioning for the repeal of sedition and espionage laws (see above) were punished; again, the Supreme Court did not rule on the matter. The right of assembly was originally closely tied to the right to petition. One significant case involving the two rights was United States v. Cruikshank (1876). There, the Supreme Court held that citizens may "assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances." Essentially, it was held that the right to assemble was secondary, while the right to petition was primary. Later cases, however, have expanded the meaning of the right to assembly. Hague v. CIO (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information." International significance Most provisions of the United States Bill of Rights are based on the English Bill of Rights (1689) and on other aspects of English law. The English Bill of Rights, however, does not include many of the protections found in the First Amendment. For example, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to the general populace, the English Bill of Rights only protected "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament." The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a French revolutionary document passed only weeks before Congress proposed the Bill of Rights, contains certain guarantees that are similar to the First Amendment's. For instance, it suggests that "every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom." Freedom of speech in the United States is more extensive than nearly any other nation in the world. While the First Amendment does not explicitly set restrictions on freedom of speech, other declarations of rights sometimes do so. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, permits restrictions "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary," and in practice these loopholes have been interpreted quite broadly by the courts of Europe. The First Amendment was one of the first guarantees of religious freedom: neither the English Bill of Rights, nor the French Declaration of Rights, contains an equivalent guarantee. Neither is the United States a theocracy like Iran, nor is it an officially atheist state like the People's Republic of China, due to the constraints imposed by the First Amendment. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

21.1. Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.") Financial assistance The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization—the hospital—and was therefore permissible. In the twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court has more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the validity of a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held, The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Despite these stringent requirements, the New Jersey law was upheld, for it applied "to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief." The Jefferson quotation cited in Black's opinion is from a letter which Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut (who were formerly taxed to support the established church in the state), that the establishment clause erected "a wall of separation between church and state." Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist) has argued that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights and that a majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of its adoption. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not "excessively entangle" with religion, for instance by funding the latter. The case involved two state laws: one permitting religious schools to pay for the use of public school services in secular fields, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was "excessively entangled" with religion, and thereby invalidated the statutes in question. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests (see below), form the Lemon test, which judges often use to test the constitutionality of a statute on establishment clause grounds. The Supreme Court decided Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon in 1973. In both cases, states—New York and Pennsylvania—had enacted laws whereby public tax revenues would be paid to low-income parents so as to permit them to send students to private schools. It was held that in both cases, the state unconstitutionally provided aid to religious organizations. The ruling was partially reversed in Mueller v. Allen (1983). There, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute permitting the use of tax revenues to reimburse parents of students. The Court noted that the Minnesota statute granted such aid to parents of all students, whether they attended public or private schools. While the Court has prevented states from financially aiding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no "excessive entanglement" since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and the aid came in the form of a one-time grant, rather than continuous assistance. One of the largest recent controversies over the amendment centered on school vouchers—government aid for students to attend private (often religious) schools. The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge. Voucher advocates have been somewhat disappointed by state responses to the decision, as they have had little success in convincing state legislators to go forward with voucher programs. School prayer Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale, decided in 1962. The case involved a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents. Though the prayer was non-denominational, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to strike it down. Justice Black wrote, "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government." The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been criticized by many, including Justice William H. Rehnquist, especially evangelical Protestants. In Abington Township v. Schempp, the case involving the reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down. The "excessive entanglement" test was added in Lemon v. Kurtzman (vide supra). In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test. The 1990s were marked by controversies surrounding religion's role in public affairs. In Lee v. Wesiman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that even a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events. In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Newdow v. United States Congress (2002), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase "under God") in classrooms. Each House of Congress passed resolutions reaffirming their support for the pledge; the Senate vote was 99–0 and the House vote was 416–3. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case, but did not rule on the merits, creating a new principle of "prudential standing", questioning Newdow's custody claims over his daughter, which the Court found to be too weak to allow Newdow to file lawsuits, a principle just narrow enough to allow the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals under heavy political pressure, without ruling on the substance of the case. Religious displays The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah...simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society." A recent controversy surrounded Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of Alabama. Moore had in 2001 installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building. In 2003, he was ordered by a federal judge to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. He argued that his right to acknowledge God was denied. It may be pointed out, however, that he retained his right to acknowledge God as a private person. It was only a violation of the establishment clause to erect a religious monument on government property; Moore was free to maintain that monument on private land. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court's decision to stand. On March 2 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary v. American Civil Liberties Union. These are the first cases directly dealing with display of the ten commandments the Court has heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). It is worth noting that among the eighteen influential lawgivers depicted in the north and south friezes of Supreme Court building are three religious figures - Moses, Confucius, and Muhammad.[1] (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf) Moses is depicted holding the ten commandments, commandments six through ten partially visible in Hebrew; Mohammed is depicted holding the Qur’an, the primary source of Islamic Law. The Supreme Court building depicts religious imagery in similar contexts in other places as well, including two additional sets of tablets representing the ten commandments. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

21.2. Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has often been interpreted to include two freedoms: the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act. The former liberty is absolute, while the latter often faces state restriction. Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group, was often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses permitted the Court to expound the free exercise clause. The Warren Court adopted an extremely liberal view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses cases During the twentieth century, many major cases involving the free exercise clause related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Many communities directed laws against the Witnesses and their attempts to convert individuals to their religion. From 1938 to 1955, the organization was involved in over forty cases before the Supreme Court, winning a majority of them. The first important victory came in 1938, when in Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Supreme Court held that cities could not require permits for the distribution of pamphlets. In 1939, the Supreme Court decided Schneider v. Town of Irvington, in which it struck down anti-littering laws that were enforced only against Jehovah's Witnesses who were handing out pamphlets. In 1940, the Court considered Cantwell v. Connecticut; the plaintiff, a Jehovah's Witness, was charged with soliciting donations without a certificate from the Public Welfare Council. The Council was to grant the certificate only if the organization requesting it was a charity or sponsored a religious cause. The Supreme Court ruled that any law granting a public body the function of determining if a cause is religious or not violates the First Amendment. The year 1940, however, was also marked by a loss for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis (the latter name was actually "Gobitas," but was misspelled by a clerk). The Minersville School Board had contended that the refusal of Gobitas' children to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance constituted insubordination, and then expelled them. Gobitas charged that his children's faith required them to salute none but God. Two courts ruled against the School Board after Gobitas sued, but the Supreme Court disagreed in an eight to one vote. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that religion "does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities." He added that the flag "is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences." The ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, however, did not stand for long. In 1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court essentially reversed its previous opinion. Justice Frankfurter had, in the Gobitis case, suggested that the Witnesses attempt to reverse the School Board's policy by exercising their vote. In the Barnette case, however, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote." The Supreme Court did not rule that the Pledge was unconstitutional; rather, they held that students may not be compelled to recite it. Compelling interest The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the free exercise clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner in 1963. The case involved Adele Sherbert, an individual who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays as required by her Seventh Day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional. The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it is constitutional insofar as the free exercise clause is concerned. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the free exercise clause when it decided Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet. The Court therefore struck down the City's ordinance. Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), however, the Court struck down the provisions of the Act which forced states and local governments to provide more protections than required by the First Amendment. The Act, however, remains applicable to the federal government, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-05]

22. Republican Party (GOP)

Abb.: Parteilogo®

Unterscheide:

• three Rs: Radical, Religious, Right

• RINOs: Republicans in Name Only (d.h. gemäßigte)

Webpräsenz: http://www.gop.com/. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06

"The Republican Party, often called the GOP (for Grand Old Party, although one early citation described it as the Gallant Old Party) [1] (http://www.gop.com/About/Default.aspx?Section=2), is one of the two major political parties in the United States. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a member of the party – and its leader [...] Organized in Ripon, Wisconsin on February 28, 1854, as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, it is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay. The first convention of the U.S. Republican Party was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan. Many of its initial policies were inspired by the defunct Whig Party. Many of its early members came from the Free Soil Party and American Party. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party. Its 2004 political platform A Safer World and a More Hopeful America expresses commitment to: "Winning the War on Terror", "Ushering in an Ownership Era"; "Building an Innovative Economy to Compete in the World", "Strengthening Our Communities", and "Protecting Our Families". The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. [...] Organization For more information on how American political parties are organized, see Politics of the United States. The Republican National Committee (RNC) of the United States is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican political platform, as well as for coordinating fundraising and election strategy. There are similar committees in every U.S. state and most U.S. counties (though in some states, party organization lower than state-level is arranged by legislative districts). It is the counterpart of the Democratic National Committee. The chairman of the RNC, since January of 2005, is Ken Mehlman. The Republican Party also has fundraising and strategy committees for House races (National Republican Congressional Committee), Senate races (National Republican Senatorial Committee), and gubernatorial races (Republican Governors Association). History [...] With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952 (there were 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans in the Senate, and Vice-President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote allowed the chamber to be organized by the GOP). This control was not to last, however, as Vermont Republican Senator James Jeffords switched parties; Democrats and Jeffords cited his discomfort with the conservative agenda of Republican leadership, while Republicans attacked a deal under which Jeffords would receive a chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (although he lost a position as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee). Many Clinton administration policies on the environment, taxes, and regulatory control of corporations were quickly reversed, but the public remained sharply divided over the president, who struggled to pass legislation through a Democratic-controlled Senate. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, however, Bush's political fortunes and approval ratings rose sharply as he pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the invasion of Afghanistan and the USA Patriot Act. The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the war in Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, for the first time winning the popular vote (by 51% to 48% - becoming the first president to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988), while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in the minority. Thus, by 2006, Republicans will have controlled the White House for 26 of the previous 38 years, and the Congress since 1994 (with a brief interruption in the Senate). [...] [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOP. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06]

Factions in the Republican Party   The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. The Republican Party of the United States is composed of various different groups or factions. Although their interests at times conflict, they share enough in common to remain in the same party. It should be noted defining the views of any "faction" of any political party is difficult at best, and that any attempt to apply labels within a single political party is no more effective than the application of broad labels to political parties as a whole. Keeping that in mind, there are several ideological groups widely recognized within the modern-day GOP: Religious right - Often used synonymously with Christian right because most of its members are fundamentalist Protestants and, to a lesser extent, traditional Catholics; however, Orthodox Jews may also belong to this category. The religious right is an important GOP faction consisting of conservatives united on social issues, embracing traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. They are against abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem-cell research; they also favor school prayer and the interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment which prohibits only the official establishment of a state church, as opposed to the more secularist view that the clause requires a strict separation of church and state. (Since the 1960s, the latter interpretation has generally been favored by the Supreme Court.) Some of this faction argue that the American colonies and the United States were founded to be Christian societies, although also tolerant of other Abrahamic religions. Some estimate religious conservatives represent the largest faction of the GOP in numbers. Prominent social conservatives include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Senator Rick Santorum. Paleoconservatives - This group has a blue-collar, populist tinge with a strong distrust of a centralized federal government, and has heavy appeal among rural Republicans. They are conservative on social issues (e.g. support for gun rights) and oppose multiculturalism, but favor a protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy. Many are also active against illegal immigration, or even all immigration. Prominent paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, have spoken against NAFTA and what they see as a neoconservative takeover of the party. Some with similar views are in the Democratic Party. Neoconservatives - Neoconservatives are generally regarded as the most militaristic branch of the party, in favor of an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy. Many were once active members of the American Left, now "disillusioned" with the perceived extreme relativism and "anti-Americanism" of the 1960s protest generation. They favor unilateralism over reliance on international organizations and treaties, believing such commitments are often against America's interests. Many are strongly pro-Israel. They began rising to significant influence during the Reagan administration. Those considered among the neoconservative circles include Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Frum. Moderates - Moderates within the GOP tend to be fiscally conservative (e.g. balanced budgets, lower taxes, less government regulations) and more liberal on social issues (e.g. supporting domestic partnerships, affirmative action, abortion rights, gun control measures, etc.). On foreign policy, they may be less militaristic than conservatives and neo-conservatives, opting for bilateral negoations and peace talks as a solution to global discord before direct military intervention. Moderate Republicans today include U.S. Senators Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani. Members of some of the other factions sometimes characterize moderates as "Republican In Name Only". The Republican Main Street Partnership (http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/) represents middle-of-the-road party members in Congress. Fiscal conservatives - This faction is extremely pro-business, receiving fervent support among corporations and the nation's economic elite. They favor large tax cuts, reduced domestic spending, privatization of Social Security, and decreased regulation of business and the environment. Originally, the pro-business branch of the GOP was practically defined by its support of protectionism-but in recent years the pro-corporate elements of the GOP have been more supportive of free trade deals. Traditionally, fiscal conservatives were enormously concerned about maintaining a sound currency and balanced budgets-but that emphasis has changed somewhat in recent years and some have supported both enormous trade deficits and governmental borrowing. The fiscal conservative branch of the GOP includes both pro-business elements and others who are much more sympathetic to libertarian positions. Prominent fiscal conservatives include Barry Goldwater and Newt Gingrich. Libertarians - This faction's philosophy is libertarianism. This faction is pro-private property and pro-personal liberty. They favor capitalism, reducing taxation and government as much as possible, privatization of as many government services and monopolies as possible, reducing government regulation of business and people's private lives, keeping religion out of government, supporting pro-life (though this is a point where there is disagreement within this faction), establishing free trade treaties with all nations in the world, and restricting government to only what is outlined in the US Constitution. They oppose the "War on Drugs", protectionism, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, governmental borrowing, and the USA being the world's police officer. The faction is represented in the party by the Republican Liberty Caucus and one of its major leaders has been U.S. Representative Ron Paul, a Texan who ran under the banner of the Libertarian Party for President. During the 2004 Republican presidential convention, this faction butted heads with the Religious Right faction over the party platform. It also actively courts members of the United States Libertarian Party to get its members to join the Republican Party and this faction to increase the voice of libertarianism within the party. [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06]

Republican Oath:

Republican Oath I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government. [Quelle: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4324. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-06]

23. Was ist mit dem katholischen Fundamentalismus, den Moonies und den Mormonen?

In dieser Lehrveranstaltung ist fast ausschließlich vom protestantischen Fundamentalismus die Rede, und von diesem nur insoweit er zur politischen Rechten gehört. Vom apolitischen protestantischen Fundamentalismus, wie den Amish People, den Zeugen Jehovas und ähnlichen Bewegungen ist also nicht die Rede. Der katholische Fundamentalismus, der eindeutig zur politischen Rechten gehört, wird nur erwähnt, insofern er Koalitionen, Aktionsbündnisse mit dem protestantischen Fundamentalismus schließt.

Der katholische Fundamentalismus unterscheidet sich vom protestantischen vor allem dadurch, dass das Fundament nicht eine wörtlich verstandene Bibel ist, sondern der unfehlbare Papst und seine Verlautbarungen. Der römische Katholizismus ist in seinem Wesen fundamentalistisch gemäß seiner Anwendung des Jesuswortes Matthäusevangelium 16, 18f. auf den Papst als Nachfolger des Petrus:

18 Ich aber sage dir: Du bist Petrus und auf diesen Felsen werde ich meine Kirche bauen und die Mächte der Unterwelt werden sie nicht überwältigen.
19 Ich werde dir die Schlüssel des Himmelreichs geben; was du auf Erden binden wirst, das wird auch im Himmel gebunden sein, und was du auf Erden lösen wirst, das wird auch im Himmel gelöst sein.

[Einheitsübersetzung]

Abb.: Präsident George W. Bush ehrt das Fundament der katholischen Fundamentalisten mit der Medal of Freedom, 2004-06
[Bildquelle. Weißes Haus]

Anlässlich des Heiligen Jahres 1950 bestimmte Papst Pius XII, den Papstmarsch von Charles Gounod (1818-1893) zur offiziellen Hymne.

Roma immortale di Martiri e di Santi, Roma immortale accogli i nostri canti: Gloria nei cieli a Dio nostro Signore, Pace ai Fedeli, di Cristo nell'amore. A Te veniamo, Angelico Pastore, In Te vediamo il mite Redentore, Erede Santo di vera e santa Fede; Conforto e vanto a chi combatte e crede, Non prevarranno la forza ed il terrore, Ma regneranno la Verità, l'Amore.

O Rome immortal of Martyrs and Saints, O immortal Rome, accept our praises: Glory in the heavens to God our Lord, And peace to men who love Christ! To You we come, Angelic Pastor, In You we see the gentle Redeemer, The Holy Heir of true and holy Faith; Comfort and refuge of those who believe and fight. Force and terror will not prevail, But Truth and Love will reign.

[Quelle der midi-Datei und des Textes: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/inno/inno_scv_testo_it.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-01-20]

Die Worte

Wir kommen zu Dir, engelgleicher Hirt,
In Dir sehen wir den sanften Erlöser,
Heiliger Erbe des wahren und heiligen Glaubens,
Stärkung und Ruhm derer, die kämpfen und glauben.

zeigen deutlich, dass der römische Katholizismus im wahrsten Sinn des Wortes fundamentalistisch ist. Kein auch noch so fundamentalistischer Muslim würde solche Worte auf einen Ayatollah oder sogar Mohammed anwenden.

Obwohl protestantische Fundamentalisten den Papst zu Recht als Antichrist anschauen, können sie offenbar selbst mit dem "Teufel" Aktionsbündnisse eingehen.

Einige Zitate von katholischen Fundamentalisten:

"Can. 1369 - Qui in publico spectaculo vel concione, vel in scripto publice evulgato, vel aliter instrumentis communicationis socialis utens, blasphemiam profert, aut bonos mores graviter laedit, aut in religionem vel Ecclesiam iniurias exprimit vel odium contemptumve excitat, iusta poena puniatur."	"Can. 1369 — Wer in einer öffentlichen Aufführung oder Versammlung oder durch öffentliche schriftliche Verbreitung oder sonst unter Benutzung von sozialen Kommunikationsmitteln eine Gotteslästerung zum Ausdruck bringt, die guten Sitten schwer verletzt, gegen die Religion oder die Kirche Beleidigungen ausspricht oder Haß und Verachtung hervorruft, soll mit einer gerechten Strafe belegt werden. "
[Codex Iuris Canonici / auctoritate  Ioannis Pauli PP. II. promulgatus. -- Vatican, 1983]
"The church does not dictate the politics of the nation. The church proclaims the truth of God to which all these [public] policies most conform." [Father Frank Provone. -- Zitiert in: The fundamentals of extremism : the Christian right in America / edited by Kimberly Blaker.  -- New Boston, Mich. : New Boston Books, ©2003.  -- 287 S. ; 22 cm.  -- ISBN: 0972549617. -- S. 13. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]
"In the not too distant future, it is anticipated that we will be faced with a civil war ... It is murder to take human life at any time following conception ... a very bloody civil insurrection shall begin ... first shot was fired in Pensacola early this year ... Dr. Gunn was a practicing murderer ... it took World War II to stop the slaughter of millions of innocent people . . . God will hold them [the faithful] accountable for not taking direct action to prevent this evil . . . [When] the normal constraints of pacifism, which pervades throughout this country, is overcome ... the killing, in protection of the innocent, will begin to spill over into the killing of the police and military who attempt to protect them. Thereafter, it will begin to affect those who direct them to protect abortion providers ...American Civil Liberties Union will [be] place[ed] high on the target list ... National Organization of [sic] Women, members of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion/choice organizations . . . terminated as vermin are terminated ... Participation in the destruction of evil would soon become understood as a meritorious action, as a prerequisite for entrance into eternal life . .. hoped that this will be sufficient for the Congress of the United States to reverse [US Supreme Court decisions] 'Roe vs. Wade' [sic] and 'Doe vs. Bolton' [sic]. . . . religious beliefs take precedence over civil laws when they are in conflict... socialism is a creeping evil.... National health care is a part of this creeping socialism.... no human force able to stop this movement once it has begun in earnest ... Lives of all who speak in favor of abortion will be at grave risk. Perhaps, even probably the lives of those politicians who fail to strongly oppose abortion will be at risk ... No personal threat is intended. . . . Sincerely in Christ, fr David C. Trosch." [Reverend David C. Trosch, 1994. -- Zitiert in: The fundamentals of extremism : the Christian right in America / edited by Kimberly Blaker.  -- New Boston, Mich. : New Boston Books, ©2003.  -- 287 S. ; 22 cm.  -- ISBN: 0972549617. -- S. 10f. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

Abb.: Sun Myung Mun und Gattin nach der Krönung durch den republikanischen Senator Danny K. Davis (Illinois), 2004-03-23
[Bildquelle: http://www.tparents.org/UNews/Unws0404/TP-040323.jpg. -- Zugriff am 2005-05-09]

Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon (문선명 bzw. 文鮮明) (geb. 1920) und seine Anhänger (Unification Church) gehören gewiss zur Christlichen Rechten und sind Fundamentalisten, auch haben sie und die evangelikalen Fundamentalisten viele persönliche, institutionelle und finanzielle Verbindungen, dennoch werden sie in dieser Lehrveranstaltung nicht näher behandelt, da sie in den USA doch eher eine Nebenerscheinung darstellen. Das wichtigste Organ der Einflussnahme ist wohl die von den Moonies finanzierte und kontrollierte Zeitung Washington Times (Webpräsenz: http://www.washtimes.com/. -- Zugriff am 2005-05-09) :

Abb.: Titelseite 2005-05-09 "The Washington Times is a daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1982 as a conservative alternative to the Washington Post by members of the controversial Unification Church. It has lost well over $1 billion since its inception. Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of the Moral Majority conservative Christian political action committee, praises the Washington Times as an "antidote" to its "liberal competitor," The Washington Post: "The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Times has forced the Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence." [1]  (http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript.shtml) Reporter Bill Gertz is famed for producing a number of scoops based on sources in the American intelligence community, many of which have turned out to be false. Former editor and early Sun Myung Moon follower Josette Shiner was appointed U.S. Deputy Trade Representative in 2003. The Washington Times Corporation also publishes the New York Noticias Del Mundo, and the monthly World&I. The weekly Insight newsmagazine, now defunct, provided additional funding to Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, allowing the suit to continue after her own funding ran out. The Washington Times Foundation has also sponsored workshops on morality, such as a recent "God and Peace" forum attended by Moon, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, and White House officials, as well as donating money to the George H. W. Bush presidential library. The Times has a circulation of approximately 100,000 a day, versus about 700,000 for the Washington Post. It should not be confused with the Washington Times established in 1893, which became the Washington Times-Herald and was merged with the Washington Post in 1954. Relationship to the Unification Church The Unification Church calls Rev. Sun Myung Moon the "founder" of the Times: "Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time, I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation. Meanwhile, I waged a lonely struggle, facing enormous obstacles and scorn as I dedicated my whole heart and energy to enable The Washington Times to grow as a righteous and responsible journalistic institution." [2]  (http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon97/sm970617.htm) However, the Unification Church has been willing to run the paper at a loss to provide a political voice. In 2003, The New Yorker claimed that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception. Critics of the Unification Church claim that operation of the Times is part of an attempt by the Unification Church to gain political influence in Washington, D.C.; to back up this claim, they also refer to the purchase of the UPI newswire service by the Church in 2001 -- a move that gives the Unification Church a press seat on Air Force One. The "Times" was also President Ronald Reagan's preferred newspaper. Despite being owned by the Unification Church, it claims to be independent of the Church, and claims not to propagate the Church's teachings directly. (Compare Christian Science Monitor.) The Times is in favor of many topics other Christian conservative organizations support, including religious freedom for Christians worldwide and a dislike of government interference in family life, except to discourage the formation of gay families, to prosecute pornography and other violations of their values. The Times states that it does not proselytize directly for the Unification Church. Editorial independence Several critics have claimed that the Times is little better than a mouthpiece for the Unification Church, noting that the paper's op-ed pages are often sympathetic to Unification movement concerns. The paper's first publisher, James Whelan, resigned rather than knuckling under to what he saw as church interference with his operation of the paper. "I have blood on my hands," he declared. The paper's current editor says Whelan was fired because he was difficult to work with and other staffers were threatening to quit because of this. While Times reporters have prided themselves on their independence from the church's position, this has occasionally put them at odds with the founder's claims of having direct influence on the Republican Party via his extravagant funding of the newspaper. And during a recent anniversary party for the Times, Moon declared: "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world" (and this, the rival Post reported, sent many reporters to the bar for a drink). Sometimes, however, the paper has been at odds with the church's position. For example, on March 3, 2003, the lead editorial declared: "The time has come for the president to publicly declare that it is the decision of the United States government to lead an invasion of Iraq with the intent to change the regime." Members and observers of the Unification Church note that this is counter to the official church position, which opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The only newspaper with a regular "Civil War" desk, the Times has also been criticized by gay activist Michelangelo Signorile and the Southern Poverty Law Center as a haven for such reconstructed pro-Confederates as Robert Stacy McCain, a critic of Abraham Lincoln." [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times. -- Zugriff am 2005-05-09]

Abb.: Brigham Young (1801 - 1877), der geniale Gründer des Mormonenstaates Utah, umgeben von einigen seiner Ehefrauen

Die Mormonen sind gewiss Fundamentalisten und auch politisch engagiert. Obwohl sie konservativ sind, ist ihr politisches Verhalten - durch ihre Geschichte (Mormonenkrieg) bestimmt - so eigenartig, dass man sie nicht zur christlichen Rechten (Christian Right) zählen kann. Mormonischer Fundamentalismus bedürfte einer gesonderten Darstellung, die in dieser Lehrveranstaltung nicht geleistet werden kann.

Zu Kapitel 1.2: Handelnde Personen I: Politiker