Dominionism

And there's nothing really "conservative" (as in little-c conservatism) about that.

At least in the US, the Conservative Movement's goals are really quite radical and destabilizing. It's why I suggest to little-c conservatives, that they might actually want to give the moderate left a serious, non-biased look. No, not the Democrats, as a party, (although there are some I would recommend listening to. Right now? Elizabeth Warren is high up on my <3 list) but the ideas that are out there as a whole.

The reason why Dominionism and Movement Conservatism goes hand in hand is by causing destabilization, it tends to push people towards authoritarian based structures.

Eh, I'm ok with liking that politicians actually have a generally higher moral standard. I think I feel that way. What I don't like is that often "moral standards" are used as a weapon against politicians we don't like. It's why generally speaking I find politicians who talk about those things more than likely are going to be the first to violate them.

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:04:00 PM by Karmakin

Joy:

• I'd wan't that from everyone, not just politicans.
• I wouldn't want a politican to spend government money on anything personal, and if a potlitican does do that there should be severe consequenses
• I agree that we should hold politican to higher standards on the things that are a factor in their work.

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:04:33 PM by Qeise

The Republican system is self serving: run the country badly, and then you'll make fear of government.

Joyflower, one thing we need to get straight here: What type of "Moral Standards" do you think are appropriate for politicians that you are advocating here? I can't think of anybody who thinks it's acceptable to take bribes or waste taxpayers money on personal expenses, it's not like non-christians endorse that behavior, we don't.

What is it that you think a secular politician would do that is so horrible that a Christian politician would not?

Barkley@I like anti-abortion canidates better a lot of times.I know that many non-Christians don't want corruption in Washington but I believe that there is not a lot of fighting against it.I have a feeling more than ever that there is corruption but I believe it is being hidden more sleathly.I also like someone who stresses the importance of family values but then like you said they tend to always be the ones caught in scandals but then again not all politcians are the same.

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:44:39 PM by joyflower

Well, that's only one issue. If you had to choose between a pro-choice candidate who matched all of your standards for decency, honesty and integrity except for being against abortion, and a pro-life candidate who took bribes, cheated on their spouse and wilfully mislead the public, which one would you vote for?

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:43:50 PM by TheGloomer

So would you vote for a presidential candidate who has a good and sensible plan for fixing the economy with minimal collateral damage or special interest influence but is pro-choice, or a moronic candidate who doesn't know dick about the economy, will lead our nation to almost certain financial ruin, but is pro-life?

Choose carefully, it's a yes or no question.

You can be anti-abortion and still take bribes and appoint cronies.

Of course, I think it should be noted that abortion is much more than a political issue for a lot of people.

Honestly, politics is about the lesser evil. If there's a candidate that you agree with on 100 percent of his policies, you need to step back and seriously examine yourself and them.

Like I said before I need to see all the canidates qualifactions before I make a decision but being anti-abortion is just an added bonus.I am not blind that there is corrupt anti-abortionists but same can be said of people on the other politcal spectrum.Like I said I won't excusily pick a canidate over that issue but it will be a bonus issue that I really agree with.

So who would you pick? The pro-choice candidate who has a good plan for the economy? Or the pro-life candidate who doesn't know his head from his ass when it comes to how government and the economy works? Cough Rick Perry Cough

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:52:34 PM by Barkey

Barkely@Vote For Other

Would you vote for anti-gay marriage person who could turn the economy around or a pro-gay marriage person who did not know how to run lead.Plus who said I was voting for Rick Perry because I am not!?!

I thought this was about Dominionism I think we could get back on subject.

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:55:15 PM by joyflower

The anti-gay politician. All that stuff will eventually get passed anyway so long as the nation survives, it would only slow the momentum a little bit. Gays will never have equal rights if the nation goes bankrupt and falls into chaos however.

My point is, Christian votership on the right who ignorantly and blindly support anybody who is in favor of their stupid "Moral Decency Standards" are what give Dominionists and their corrupt ilk any form of power in this nation. They are idiots who foolishly place social issues that will not destroy this country over important economic and political issues that have the potential to have devastating and long-lasting consequences.

edited 23rd Sep '11 2:59:25 PM by Barkey

Sorry,but what I hate is that you think I am an idiot and I have a feeling that you thought that I supported because of his pro-life stance.I understand you don't want to run by Dominionists but calling all Christians on the right idiots is kinda punch in the face for me.You have a point about it but at the same time it sounds pretty insulting.

No, I call people who put social issues that we have all the time in the world to work on above economic issues that have a time limit idiots.

People who hold power because of populist statements about social issues and then proceed to try and gut the economy are a danger to this country, and I can and will call their supporters idiots, because they are endangering the very survival of this nation, much less its prosperity.

I didn't call all Christians idiots. I called the ones who don't think about what's more important idiots. I know plenty of Christians who believe our faltering economy is more important than social issues that we can put on hold, they are not idiots.

Social issues can wait. They will always be around for us to argue, it's like being a bomb disposal technician, and you see two bombs.. One is an inert artillery shell that isn't going to go off by itself, the other is a thermonuclear device with a timer that is ticking down, second by second.

Idiots go for the inert artillery shell so the time bomb can blow them up soon after. Intelligent people defuse the time bomb so they have plenty of time to carefully work on the artillery shell.

edited 23rd Sep '11 3:10:11 PM by Barkey

I wonder if I could request this thread locked because its getting ugly as it is.

Comapred to the judgmentalism thread, it's hardly getting ugly.

I think it may be straying from the topic, though.

I am saying it might have chances of getting uglier and we all will have ill will against each other but mostly with me.

I don't have ill will against anyone here, but it'd be awesome if you would answer my question.

The point is alot of these ideals you want are not exclusive to Christianity by a long shot.

So why should our government have to OFFICIALLY be Christian in order to gain said ideals?

Speaking for myself, there's zero ill-will here. I'm trying to convince you (and other such people) that the politicians who talk the talk about "family values" and "moral principles" do anything but "walk the walk".

I'm a stability-oriented person. I really am. That to me is my "family values". I believe in stable family units, more or less. Not that I'm anti-divorce or whatever..exactly the opposite...in that I think that a divorce can actually make a situation more stable, or whatever. In this way, I don't see "conservative" economic politics as being pro-family values in any sort of way. In fact it's the opposite. It's very unstable. That's also why I fully support gay marriage. It's not a matter of not even being opposed to it. I'm fully in favor of it. I cheer it. I applaud it. Again, it's my "family values" at play.

Now, what's often meant on the other side by "family values", is the idea that families and other groups should be structured in an authoritarian fashion. I do not believe that this is real stability. Sometimes it might work! But I feel that more often than not, it can never truly be stable as by and large it is arbitrary. Corruption is almost impossible to avoid. This is a large part of what "Dominionism" is, although you probably can find better information about it by looking up the history of Christian Reconstructionism, which Dominionism is an offshoot of.

This is not attacking Christianity in general. This is simply stating that there are people with real, legitimate concerns about Reconstructionists/Dominionists gaining both power and cultural influence.

Edit:I should point out that the actual attack on Christianity/Christians/other religious movements/believers/whatever on this much larger point is the suspicion that at the end of the day, is the concern that moderate/mainstream/whatever believers will support the Reconstructionists/Dominionists over their secular critics because the tribal identity is that strong.

edited 23rd Sep '11 3:45:09 PM by Karmakin

Speaking of all of this does anyone remember that when George Bush was being voted in we would have Dominionism or something like that.I know a lot of you like George Bush better as a person rather than a president and you hate Rick Perry both as a person and a politician.But I was wondering was there a scare about Dominionists with George Bush or was it not as much as Rick Perry.And don't think I am going to vote for Rick Perry because I will not!!!

There was some concern over Bush talking about how God talked to him or something.

Oh look, we got into Iraq, which is kind of like his interpretation of a holy war.

Though, that may be reaching. The difference is, I'm pretty sure that Bush did not overtly have the support of dominionists during his nomination run. Someone fact check I have to finish making dinner.

When Bush was being voted in I wasn't really worried about Christian influence much, I saw him for what he was, a businessman at heart.