"Creationism" Dominionist' Trojan Horse???

Creationism v Evolution Christian Dominionist Trojan Horse

Ken Ham believes Christians must return to a literal interpretation of the Bible .

The Bible is he argues the literal word of God and so believers must accept all of

the Bible and not just some parts of it.

So according to Ken Ham when it comes to a number of social issues Christians need

to abide by God's Word. He says Christians must reject humanism and secularism and

demand that the Word of God have Dominion in America. All laws must therefore

reflect what the Bible teaches and not some sort of majority consensus or rulings

from secular controlled courts or legislators.

Ken Ham: Same-Sex Marriage Results from Discarding Creationism

Published on 25 May 2012
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content...
Creationist leader Ken Ham says that the rise of a non-literal interpretation of

Genesis is responsible for growing support for same-sex marriage

Ken Ham: Erosion of Christian America: State of the Nation 2 -

The Biblical view expressed by Ken Ham in 2014 are based upon the similar ideological and theological views or assertions of the founder of the Religious Right Dr. Francis Schaefferin 1980s especially as outlined in his Christian Manifesto.


The Rev. Jerry Falwell of the Old Gospel Hour who became the head of the Moral Majority Inc. introduces Christian Dominionist Dr. Francis Schaeffer who in his speech in this video expounds upon his work "A Christian Manifesto".
In A Christian Manifesto Dr. Francis Schaeffer argues America has lost its way as it is now dominated by an anti-God humanist world view . To correct this he argues that the Christian Biblical beliefs and values must be reaffirmed as the foundation of American society and its government.

Francis Schaeffer - A Christian Manifesto pt. 1 of 3

Ryan Lizza in an article in the New Yorker argued that Francis Schaeffer believed there was a point at which overthrowing the government by any means necessary would be justified.

" For Schaeffer the “bottom line” was the replacement of the Christian world view by the humanist world view in American culture and law, a struggle most clearly epitomized by the legalization of abortion. It’s true that Schaeffer was sometimes coy about the case he was making and the obvious conclusions he was reaching, which has led to some confusion about his arguments. He was clearly concerned about the power of his words, and at one point he notes that there are “so many kooky people around” who could harm the Christian cause."

"But to read “A Christian Manifesto” as only a call for non-violent civil disobedience is to willfully ignore a central argument of the book: that at a certain point—the “bottom line”—the government loses its moral authority, and its overthrow by any means is justified. Schaeffer believed these conditions existed for the early Christians under the Romans, for the Protestants of the Reformation, for the Colonists in the Revolution, and for American Christians in the nineteen-eighties."

Above quote from article at New Yorker “A CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO”’S CALL TO ARMS
POSTED BY RYAN LIZZA , Aug.30, 2011


also see Ross Douthart's article at the New York Times The New Yorker and Francis Schaeffer of Aug. 29, 2011 and his defense of Francis Schaeffer claiming Schaeffer did not call for the creation of anything like a theocracy or the forceful or violent overthrow of the US government.

But this is not quite true since Francis Schaeffer did emphatically call for the government of the USA and its laws to be founded upon Biblical truth. So the reformed type of government may not be made up of in its entirety by members of the clergy or theologians they would have to be primarily people who believed in Biblical truth as the foundation for government and law.