Even though Michele Bachmann's viability as a candidate is almost nil, what she stands for is important, since Rick Perry and Sarah Palin are also high-profile members of the dominionist movement. Dr. George Grant is the chancellor and founder of New College Franklin in Tennessee. New College Franklin is a small, private Christian university with big dreams.
From the video, courtesy of RightWingWatch:
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.
Rarely have I seen such a straightforward statement of dominionism. By the way, it is such a radical theology and political stance that many politicians running for office run away from these types. John McCain embraced, then rejected John Hagee in 2008, and now Bachmann has removed the reference to Grant's endorsement from her campaign website, too.
Grant's manifesto in that video is exactly what dominionists believe -- that they have a mandate to not simply participate, but have dominion over the world, politically and otherwise.
There's plenty of debate about what to do about churches and cults who enjoy tax-exempt status and yet expect to have dominion over our political landscape, particularly in light of the Bill of Rights, which grants freedom of religion, no matter how bizarre, and freedom of speech. Would revocation of their tax-exempt status invite them to a higher profile in politics or a lower one?
The thinking behind giving churches tax-exempt status is that it further separates church and state. This is the logic applied by the US Supreme Court in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York. However, I believe there should be some middle ground. Why, for example, don't churches have to file form 990 like other organizations? Why shouldn't they be accountable for their revenue and expenditures, and have to certify that those expenditures are not used for lobbying or political purposes like other tax-exempt organizations? Why don't they have to file an application for tax-exempt status?
As taxpayers, we're subsidizing churches and colleges like this one, who are shameless about their involvement and goals in politics. When Michele Bachmann's campaign finally breathes its last, I'm sure Dr. Grant will endorse Rick Perry or possibly even Mitt Romney, depending on who Romney's running mate is. Of course, he will be doing it as an individual, not as the head of a tax-exempt organization, which will shield him from scrutiny by the IRS while subjecting us all to the insanity these people bring to the debate.