Willingly Ignorant Regent Law/GOP Defenders?

With Monica Goodling and the pipeline from Regent Law into Bu$hCo, including the Machiavellian nature of Rove's Mormon Mafia and many of these young conservatives that had come up in the ranks when the GOP controlled the whole of government, being covered a fair amount, I'd like to look at the ignorance, seemingly celebrated, of the true believers. Yet first there's a tip of the tam due to J.C. Christian for the image.

I recently got into a comment thread with Max Blumenthal's post over at HuffPo where a Witherspoon and RAGGEDSTEP were throwing around some GOP/Right Wing talking points. I asked RAGGEDSTEP how Ivy League views were associated with the left yet the main questions went to Witherspoon.

With a robust Christian persecution narrative and a good dose of the faithful vs the Godless heathen it seemed, he/she seemed almost willfully ignorant of "dominionism" and the agenda of Pat Robertson, Regent, etc. Here's his/her comment:

Re: the post on "dominionism": I have attended conservative Christian churches all of my life, of varying denominations and in numerous parts of America and abroad, yet I have never met anyone who professes to be a member of a "dominionist" movement. What's more, I have never heard the school of thought discussed. I attended Regent, but did not encounter dominionism there. Whatever "dominionism" is, it must claim a miniscule following among evangelical Christians. Dominionism, it seems to me, acts as a great "straw man" for the anti-Christians on the Left.

Since I became curious, and Witherspoon never responded, the following post results. Searching takes some time yet I'm better for it so think I ought to share.

Beginning with the name Regent, Pat Robertson's switch from CBN was more than marketing 101. Straight from the Regent Robertson School of Gov't site ...

Growing to seven schools, the Board of Trustees voted to change the name to Regent University. A “regent” is one who represents a king in his absence. For us at Regent University, a regent is one who represents Christ, our Sovereign, in whatever sphere of life he or she may be called to serve Him.

If Witherspoon doesn't recognize "dominionism"is it because one can often hardly see what they are covered with which keeps that person in the dark? I surely do know "dominionism" from my own experiences yet Witherspoon doesn't? I can turn on the radio here in the sticks and find it on multiple stations! I can books ate slam up with it in the local semi-super center Wally Mart! Hell, it's on the damned church billboards here! Minuscule following my ass! It's the Reich Wing leaders across this nation that use this BS to keep their flocks flocked. And most importantly for me, and I'd suggest for all of us, is that "dominionism" is how the GOP gets these sheep to vote against their own economic interests so often. Then again, I figure "dominionism" has at least something to do with the failure of Iraq and perhaps even the attack of 9-11. I also think there's not much difference between Islamists and Christianists. Get enlightened Witherspoon. Use the Google. Get on the internets. Read some books. Ponder. Seek.

Here's what I located ... Backing up to this older 1994 work, Frederick Clarkson's examination of Reconstructionism buttresses my own scary interpretation of what Regent represents. Maureen Farrell's 2004 work is also good at introducing some of the "religious" personalities and groups involved with Bu$hCo's strange coalition. A marriage of neo and theo-cons? I also found Herb Titus (the initial Dean of Regent Law before he and Pat got crossways) working with Alabama's Favorite Theocrat Roy Moore, to craft the Constitution Restoration Act. Richard Shelby and Robert Adderholt partially legitimated these two jokers by pandering to their radicalism yet introducing this legislation would in a better state cost them.

I close most every post with "Peace ... or War!" as allegedly that was my clan's approach. Like many Higlander Scots, my kin figured if things were cool then we might as well be in a state of warfare. I don't in that I like the idea of settling differences. I also like "Live and let live." I think a person's faith is a deeply personal matter and therefore is seldom my concern. However, the idea that a faith is going to take over our gov't is hardly conducive to maintaining "peace". Thus the "War!"