Template talk:Dominionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism
2 cite sources in bio articles
3 removing unverifiable link
4 New additions
5 Kuyper
6 latest removal
- 6.1 It has to go
7 "Identified" vs. "Accused"
8 "said to influence"?

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite sources in bio articles

Any biography needs to mention the person's association with Dominionism, and provide proper citation. Otherwise, they will have to be removed from this template per WP:V. --Rob 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing unverifiable link

During the related AfD for the article Dominionist political parties, which included member parties of the European Christian Political Movement, it was proven that connections to all of the parties on the list to Dominionism were unverifiable. The result of that AfD was delete. Therefore, the link on this template to that list was removed. Now, the only party left linked here is the ECPM, which was also largely vindicated by that AfD. There has never been any verifiable proof put forward that links the ECPM to Dominionism. Letting it remain while being unverified is POV-pushing at least, a political attack at worst. Therefore, I am removing it from the template. Removing it will empty the category on the template, so I am erasing the category as well. If anyone can in the future present verifiable evidence that links the ECPM to Dominionism, then at that point the link can be reinstated, but not before. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

This edit added a few more names. Not all mention the word "dominionism". Please add well sourced references to dominionism in the articles, so its easy for others to verify the appropriateness. --Rob 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dominionism" is understood as a synonym for "Christian Reconstructionism" on both sides of the issue. For example, on the negative side, this article says "an extremist theology called Christian Reconstructionism, also known as Theocratic Dominionism"; ReligiousTolerance.org heads an article: "Dominionism (A.K.A. Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, and Theonomy)". On the positive side, Reconstructionist writers often classify themselves as "Dominionist" (e.g., David Chilton's book Paradise Restored is subtitled A Biblical Theology of Dominion; Kenneth Gentry's most well-known work is titled He Shall Have Dominion; a whole bunch of Gary North's books include "Dominion" in their titles, such as Tools of Dominion, see also his newsletter Dominion Strategies); and one of the Reconstructionist publishing houses is Dominion Press. Including prominent Reconstructionists should not be controversial or need any further support. » MonkeeSage « 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Only those individuals who would be considered Dominionists according to the strict criteria of adhering to R.J. Rushdoony's theories should be included. Citations by groups such as TheocracyWatch are ad hominem attacks at best. It's akin to citing the GOP press office regarding Ted Kennedy.

I say the template has to go or be whittled down to self-professing Dominionists. Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party definitely should be included. I interned for Howard once upon a time, and I didn't realize it until he had a guest on his public access TV show to discuss theonomy.--Pravknight 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuyper

Abraham Kuyper is cited as an influence on Dominionism:

At this point it is mandatory to recognize another distinction. Just as stewardship encompasses both the calling and charity, so the concept of the Kingdom of God includes the work of the institutional church and the godly activity of Christian men in all their legitimate human institutions. This point was made clear by the great Dutch thinker, Abraham Kuyper, when he developed his concept of sphere sovereignty. (Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 808).

Christian Reconstructionism's history begins in the late 19th Century in the Netherlands. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901-05 Abraham Kuyper, following a dramatic conversion to Calvinism, attempted to relate theology to every sphere of life. He subscribed to the theory of presuppositionalism which holds that all human behavior is inherently religious. Therefore, he began to form Calvinist schools, newspapers, political organizations and even hospitals. (Christian Reconstruction, Religious movements homepage, the University of Virginia[1]).

Abraham Kuyper's development of Calvin's thought, and formulation of a distinctively Christian approach to education and society, has exercised formibidable influence on twentieth-century Calvinism. Post-Kuyperian Calvinism has thought in an emphatically "worldviewish" fashion, that is, there is a regular stress on thinking and living Christianly in all areas of life. This pattern of thought was decisive in the so-called Dutch school, and influencial upon Dooyeweerd and Van Til in turn. Kuyper argued for an over-arching philosophy of life resting upon God alone as the epistemological foundation. "There is not an inch in the whole of temporal life which Christ, as Lord of all men, does not say, `Mine,'" said Kuyper.

Van Til took up and refined Kuyper and Dooyeweerd's thinking. One of his customary emphases was that there is no such thing as neutrality. A person cannot be neutral about God, nor can he be neutral in his thinking or living. There are only two options: for or against, God-centered or man-centered. Van Til said: "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." Van Til meant that in the sphere of human thinking and behaving one has only two options: God's way or self's way.

The combination of Kuyper's concern for a distinctly Christian approach to the whole of life, and Van Til's insistence that one is always either theonomous or autonomous, when applied to the area of civil law and government provided a critical platform for the theonomic theory as we shall illustrate later. (J. Ligon Duncan, III, Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement[2]).

Many theonomists claimed that Falwell and Robertson were reading and interacting with folks like R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, and David Chilton, leaders of the theonomist movement. So, Robertson and Falwell were building on the theonomists, and for their part, the theonomists claimed to be bulding on the teachings of Cornelius Van Til and Abraham Kuyper. (David Wayne's weblog[3]).

[edit] latest removal

Tony Perkins (evangelical Christian figure) and Paul Weyrich do not mention domionism in their articles (at this moment). So, I removed them from here. The following is the required order of operations, when giving labels:

Obtain a reliable source
Write relevant content in the bio article, *citing* the source in the *article* (not the talk page, but the bio article itself)
Update templates and categories appropriately

Please note, I did leave in Free Congress Foundation, as these steps (at first glance) appear to have been followed.

--Rob 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste time by putting the names back, without updating the bio articles appropriately with sources. I'll leave them alone, as soon as the appropriate bio article updates are done. --Rob 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As you already know, relevant supporting cites exist. Either I or someone else will just add the relevant supporting cites to the articles and we'll be back to not just having Paul Weyrich and Tony Perskins listed in the template, but linked to dominionism through their articles now as well, so the silly game you've been playing to minimize any expansion of coverage of dominionism at Wikipedia is not working in your favor.

BTW, Tony Perkins is the president of Family Research Council. Paul Weyrich is founder and leader of Free Congress Foundation. Both are identified as Dominionist in their articles. The supporting cites in those articles lead to evidence that they are Dominionist as well, so there's no shortage of evidence. But you already knew that. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:LIVING. It's not a game. Follow policy. --Rob 19:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about WP:POINT and WP:NPOV here, but thanks anyway. You've been following me and rv'ing every dominionism-related edit I've made for several weeks now, a good number of which had nothing to do with WP:BLP. You may want to consider how that appears before you continue.

BTW, Weyrich is back in, supporting content has been added to his article and Perkins is next. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, almost every properly (or even modestly) sourced contribution in dominionism you've made, has been left in place by me, and only edited for neutrality. If you want to see who's making a point to edit articles to push their POV on religion, there's a handy tool that lets you see the top articles edited by any editor (#of edits by the user per article). Given your top ten all involve similiar religious related POV battles, and almost none of my top ones relate to religion; I'm not worried of any person actually thinking I have a religious agenda, as you seem to imply. --Rob 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means then, please carry on. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments supporting Weyrich and Perkins belonging in the "Dominionist" camp are ad hominem at best, and the evidence is weak and non-objective. In other words the only thing supporting those views are straw man arguments. The only folks who should be there are the followers of the Chalcedon Foundation, and unless you can furnish third-party research or first person comments it's as good as citing your friend David Horowitz's claims that MoveOn.org is the activist arm of the Communist Party USA. BTW, I tried that one and it got deep-sixed. So much for double standards and cited evidence. --Pravknight 04:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Weyrich, unlike, many Evangelicals doesn't believe in anarcho-capitalism, which is a hallmark of Dominionist views. --Pravknight 17:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The following was accidentally placed in the TFD talk page. -- nae'blis 08:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It has to go

Dominionism has become a buzzword used as an ad hominmem attack against Christian Right figures, and ones such as Paul Weyrich, I know for a fact do not believe in the tenets of Christian Reconstructionism. --Pravknight 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know that your opinion is that any coverage of Dominionism at Wikipedia has to go from your objections elsewhere. That Dominionism is an ad hominmem attack or a buzzword is simply one particular viewpoint and opinion. That Dominionism is not is another. Wikipedia's NPOV policy prevents us from favoring one viewpoint over the other by deleting or surpressiong an opposing viewpoint; something you should know considering your claims elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

All you have ere are innuendos, not facts on most of these people.--Pravknight 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your single-handed campaign to bowdlerize WP of all references to dominionism continues apace despite the clear consensus at your user conduct RFC against it.

No, what we have are verifiable sources that meet WP:RS and a central policy, WP:NPOV, that calls for all significant and verifiable viewpoints to be presented. FeloniousMonk 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Identified" vs. "Accused"

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (online edition):

identify /aɪˡden.ti.faɪ/ us /—t̬ə—/
verb [T]
1 to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what they are:

Even the smallest baby can identify its mother by her voice.

The gunman in Wednesday's attack has been identified as Lee Giggs, an unemployed truck driver.

[R] The police officer identified himself (= gave his name or proved who he was) and asked for our help.

2 to recognize a problem, need, fact, etc. and to show that it exists:

The research will be used to identify training needs.

You need to identify your priorities.

accuse /əkˡjuːz/
verb [T]
to say that someone has done something morally wrong, illegal or unkind:

"It wasn't my fault." "Don't worry, I'm not accusing you."

He's been accused of robbery/murder.

Are you accusing me of lying?

The surgeon was accused of negligence.

I just wanted the lay out the defintions so we can discuss the issue rather than edit war. Personally, being a Dominionist, I have no problem with "identified" (several people in the template are self-identified Dominionists, e.g., North) — it is accurate, in terms of the primary meaning "recognize", as several sources linked in the Dominionism article recognize the persons and groups in the template as "Dominionist". The word "identify", itself, taken in that sense, does not even mean that the identification is accurate, just that it is made (just as when we say "Zeus was identified as the primary god in the Greek Pantheon", we don't have to agree with the identification as accurate). On the other hand, "accuse" has negative connotations which are not always correct, such as in the case of the self-identifying Dominionists. » MonkeeSage « 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "said to influence"?

When I see constructions like "said to advocate," and "said to influence," I wonder who says. Having these headings in a template, where do we document who says? I think it might be better if the headings were Ideas, Advocates (if it's near-universally agreed who are the advocates), People, and Groups. It is hard to have balanced content inside of a template. Some of what's presented here might work better in the top-level article. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/Template_talk%7EDominionism_d656.html"