Rafael Cruz: Obama to Take Our Guns Like Mao and Stalin »« Humanist Crisis Response Raising Funds for Child Refugees

Anti-Choice Group Launches With Speech from Christian Reconstructionist

Personhood Iowa is the new anti-choice group affiliated with the National Personhood Alliance, a group so far out on the fringe that they think the National Right to Life Committee is a bunch of liberal appeasers. So naturally they launched the group with a speech from Christian Reconstructionist and neo-Confederate secessionist Michael Peroutka.

In keeping with the group’s apparent mission to be so extreme that it will never attract any mainstream support, Deace invited Michael Peroutka, a regular guest on his radio show, to give an opening speech to Personhood Iowa activists…

Peroutka — who recently declared that the Maryland General Assembly is no longer a valid legislative body because its passage of marriage equality violated “God’s law” — told the Iowa activists that everything from seat-belt mandates to the progressive income tax to Obamacare to Roe v. Wade are not valid laws because government only has the authority to uphold what he deems to be “organic law.” In fact, he said, all of these things are “pretended legislation,” a term used in the Declaration of Independence to refer to acts of Parliament governing the American colonies.

Peroutka also presented the audience with a contrast between what he sees as the “biblical worldview,” which he says is based on the idea of literal biblical creationism, and the “pagan worldview,” which he says is based on the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution, he claimed, was responsible for the Columbine school shooting and the Holocaust, yet is still being taught through “the tragedy of public education.”

I’m glad to see this, actually. It rips the mask off and reveals what is really going on here, which is a group of people who want to turn the United States into an actual theocracy. We knew that, of course, but it’s nice to see they just come out and say it.

Comments

  1. eric says

    Sadly, I think that very first quoted phrase is somewhat wrong. They may not attract many mainstream politicians to publicly support them, but I bet they’ll have an influence on what mainstream politicians say about abortion (at least in Iowa). That’s pretty much what I see these movements being about now; moving the Overton Window is as much their goal as trying to get some candidate in office who suports their position.

  2. Sastra says

    Peroutka also presented the audience with a contrast between what he sees as the “biblical worldview,” which he says is based on the idea of literal biblical creationism, and the “pagan worldview,” which he says is based on the theory of evolution.

    Okay, it’s beginning to look like the fundies are trying to start up a fight between the atheists and the pagans. Sometimes they give evolution to the atheists; sometimes they let the pagans have it. At first I thought there was just confusion within their ranks. Maybe they disagree? Or maybe they simply can’t tell the distinction between pagans and atheists?

    But no. It’s a plot. It’s a dark plan. The Christians are trying to make us quarrel.

    Pagan vs. Atheist: the Who-Owns-Evolution Wars.

    Divide-and-Conquer. Hmmm. Maybe they’re smarter than they look.

  3. raven says

    This is quite the collection of assertions without proof or data and lies strung together.

    not valid laws because government only has the authority to uphold what he deems to be “organic law.”

    There is no such thing as “organic law”. Peroutka means either “natural law” which also doesn’t exist or more likely “biblical law”. Biblical law is at least real in the Mickey Mouse sense, i.e. a human construct of ideas. It almost certainly never ever existed in reality.

    and the “pagan worldview,” which he says is based on the theory of evolution.

    As a Pagan, I would cheerfully take credit for evolution, Relativity, Thermodynamics, Germ Theory of Disease, gravity and all of science. Thanks Peroutka.

    Unfortunately, here in the real world, science isn’t Pagan. It is just…science.

  4. cry4turtles says

    They point their collective finger at legislation and cry,”Pretend!”, and then march back to their churches and worship their pretend god.

  5. Loqi says

    @Sastra

    Divide-and-Conquer. Hmmm. Maybe they’re smarter than they look.

    Or sound. Or act. Or…smell? Can someone smell dumb? Like their armpits smell like toothpaste while their breath smells like Old Spice?

  6. M can help you with that. says

    Pagan vs. Atheist: the Who-Owns-Evolution Wars.

    If I’m a pagan atheist, does that mean I get all the creationist rage?

    Because I’m OK with that.

  7. says

    Sastra “Okay, it’s beginning to look like the fundies are trying to start up a fight between the atheists and the pagans.”
    You’re overthinking it. Pagan = Not Christian. Atheist, too. It’s all “Us” and “Them”, really.

  8. Artor says

    Hey M, you too? You’ll have to share credit with me. How many Pagan atheists are out there anyway?

  9. whheydt says

    Who cares about mere pagans? Peroutka and his buddies are barbarians. Barbarians, I tell you. After all…how many of them speak Greek?

    Now what I’d like to see in one of these states with “personhood” laws is for a woman to file an unlawful detainer suit and give the fetus 3 days to vacate the premises. Watch the fundies go nuts trying to preserve property rights and be anti-choice at the same time.

  10. cry4turtles says

    @8 Most of them probably ride Harleys, wear patches on their backs, and call themselves “one percenters”.

  11. tsig says

    I once belonged to a group whose membership criteria was so strict I was the only member.

    :{]

  12. abb3w says

    @3, raven

    There is no such thing as “organic law”.

    Poking the Google NGram viewer, it appears to have been a phrase that reached its height in the 1880s before generally falling into decline (with a brief lesser resurgence in the 1960s). Poking Google books, there appears to have been some use of the term to refer to laws which a legislature (as a governmental organ) passes directed at its own internal governance, akin to the “Rules of the House” and “Rules of the Senate” in the US — specifically those in France. The 1800s use seems a sense more commonly somewhere between “natural law” and “common law”; mainly focused on the state and federal constitutions — which, arguably, are also laws directed at internal governance.

    Poking Google Scholar’s legal side turns up a footnote in a case ruling, mentioning in passing Black’s Law Dictionary 1274 (10th ed. 2014) defines “organic law” as “[t]he body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government”. As such, this phrase looks very likely to be one that refers to an actual legal concept, but that is here being used in the grossly distorted manner typical of sovereign citizen “cargo cult” warping of the law.

  13. raven says

    @#12

    OK.

    Peroutka seems to have picked an obscure term hardly anyone ever heard of or uses.

    Then he redefined it to mean that, “Organic law is whatever Peroutka says it is.” Orwell is laughing again.

  14. says

    You know… as someone who tends towards a rather pagan worldview (tree-hugging, dirt-worshiping, save the planet hippie), I don’t think there’s really a whole lot I disagree with atheists on.

    I’m happy to support the cause.

  15. abb3w says

    @13ish, raven:

    Peroutka seems to have picked an obscure term hardly anyone ever heard of or uses. Then he redefined it to mean that, “Organic law is whatever Peroutka says it is.”

    Yep. But “he’s arbitrarily redefining it” is slightly different from “there’s no such thing”.

Leave a Reply