Dominionism

Well, there's a Republican primary campaign. This means a new round of politicians being accused of dominionism, a strain of Christian theology that makes believers [GI Joe determined to rule the world]!

Unfortunely, this term gets tossed around loosely. Must a dominionist be...

1) Protestant? 2) a republican rather than a monarchist? 3) Believe it morally obligatory to revive Mosaic law? 4) An. American nationalist?

Help me out here.

A Dominionist must be the definition of the latest media buzz word.

The Time article said they believe the democrats are possessed by demons...

Time magazine probably picks the ones that stand out and probably skipped out on the ones that are nicer and friendlier.

Besides I think there would be two sides to this crowd one is a friendly one and the other is a batshit insane crowd.

edited 20th Sep '11 9:14:15 PM by joyflower

Dominionism is an umbrella term for most hard-liner Christians these days. We tend to focus on the so-called American Taliban, the nutters who want to dress all women in nun habits, but the truth is most Christians feel that the Bible should be applied to law (which is bad enough) and that decency should be enforced.

Well, that's a tough argument to fight against. We're a pretty decadent society, very lazy and superficial and fake.

Most Christains here are mostly of Prostesant orgin and just want you not to have your breasts hanging all over the place.I think that would only apply to Catholics for the nuns but then again they don't get as much attention as the Protesants.

I thought dominionism came from the portion of the bible saying that humans shall have dominion over all the land and the animals in it, and that based on that, and the fact that "Dominion" in the bible only ever referred to the Lord or a king, that means that humans are free to do what they wish with the earth.

I think its a little bit of a buzzword, but that there are actual factions who do identify as dominionist.

I went looking at Rational Wiki and found this article from theocracywatch: http://www.theocracywatch.org/#Theocracy

These people are the ones that make people cry dominionist when it comes to Rick Perry.

"The basic thesis asserts that God is restoring the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of Prophet and Apostle."

People who overtly want to undo separation of church and state. You can argue they don't have a lot of influence or something, but this is basically what crys of dominionism are made for in the first place.

edited 20th Sep '11 9:26:18 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Well, like so many words 'Dominionism' has a loose meaning in the US. Generally it means they want to inject religion into aspects of society, like media and music and education. The "six mountains". (or whatever number it is)

Would you be happy if the dominionists cracked down on the corruption in Washington and told them all to be be less self-gratifying and self-serving.

Yeah, that's generally where Perry's background seems to be. (I think Palin actually comes from a similar background)

Generally speaking "Dominionism" and other such terms (check out The Family for a pretty prominent group along these lines) are just blanket terms for people with power who want to use that power to push forward strictly religious policy and culture. It's not as precise as it should be however, because I think we're a bit gun-shy about talking about these sort of things.

One of the problems that's brought up about religion as a whole, even the well-meaning kind is that it kind of feeds a positive stereotype of religious individuals, and as such we feel less eager to challenge those with truly dangerous religious beliefs.

Generally speaking these are bad bad people, who have broken moral compasses. Yet because they hide it behind a veneer of religion, they get away with it.

They live off the corruption. Not gonna happen.

For what it's worth I'd settle for mainstream religious groups using social pressure against groups/individuals who are causing poverty, via low wages or poor working conditions or whatever. But that's not going to happen.

edited 20th Sep '11 9:42:11 PM by Karmakin

How do you tell a person of faith to butt out of politics?

It's one thing to say, "look, don't impose your beliefs on me." But secular politics (to use another loaded word) imposes the will of others on them.

If "the dominionists" were actually anti-corruption (rather than being in favor of anything that gets them, "The Rightful Agents of GAWD!" in power) then they'd be less objectionable in the first place.

@johnnyfog & Tomu: Where do I fit in, being against separation of church and state but a cosmopolitan monarchist who believes Mosaic law has no force?

I have a feeling the Left is going to find its new buzz word and it is dominionists and it will certainly suck in my opinion.

I am kinda of a social conservative that trys to see things in life that need to be corrected morally and with actions.Plus isn't it self defeating if you just give up not correcting corruption.

I think that the state has its duty and the church has its duty.However,I think a Christian canidate can have his beliefs influence him if that canidate was truly dedicated to them plus I will look at his/her policies to see if they really say who they are and their history.

edited 20th Sep '11 9:55:42 PM by joyflower

@joy: That's fine by my book. My problem are candidates who wish to make our democracy into a theocracy, which can be easily manipulated by whoever happens to be in charge. I also have a problem with people who want to use the ten commandments as the basis for the constitution, which directly violates the rights of non-Christians and non-theists, for instance.

I don't know the ten commandments are easy to remmeber and infact I will show them to you.

1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

6 “You shall not murder.

7 “You shall not commit adultery.

8 “You shall not steal.

9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

All in all a lot of politicans have commited at least five to seven of those commandments.I think it would be fun holding more politcians accountable for misdeamnors.Don't worry I hold that both sides can be corrupt and self serving so maybe they could use the ten commandments to remind people espically Christains who they serve.

edited 20th Sep '11 10:19:04 PM by joyflower

Religious people being elected is fine. What isn't fine is when religious people get elected not to bring bright ideas to politics (ideas of which are inspired by their beliefs), but when they explicitly are trying to hold positions of power as representatives of some kind of faith or church.

As for you Rott, you're "something else" and let's leave it at that.

The first one itself is violation of the rights of non-christians. Second destroys a lot of iconography. third restricts freedom of speech. And so on, with the exception of 6 and 8.

Like my mama always said you can't win them over.It could encourage more Christian politcians to do their jobs.What I am saying that it could work to your advantage in this younger generation of Christians who want accountability and truth plus want our politcians to be like that.

I think maybe thats what this movement could do expect better from our politicians because America and the citizens deserve better.

At least we can all agree on that.

edited 20th Sep '11 10:45:24 PM by joyflower

The problem is when we can no longer discuss things in a common language and just fall back on tribal identities of various sorts. That's what worries me. That's when compromise or good policy go right out the window.

People of faith can be elected into power, I mean the British Prime Minster is an Anglican. I think though that most people tend to strawmen religious politicians into wanting to turn their country into a theocracy.

Religious people can get elected, but they shouldn't (except for only nominally religious people, they're tolerable): People of faith are typically keen on imposing their views on morality as public policy.

Most don't shy away from using State violence to persecute the things they consider immoral or sinful.

edited 21st Sep '11 12:49:31 AM by SavageHeathen

Says you, Savage. But you never actually give us anything to prove any of your statements are true. In fact, if they were true, there would be a lot more pissed of people about it.

At any rate, these Dominionists are a minority. They might support Perry, but I don't think Perry himself is one. (Though I do agree he's something of a fundamentalist and very definitely an idiot. Anyone who's voting for him has not been fully informed.)

It doesnt help that a lot of the republcan politicians actually live up to the strawman