Talk:Dominionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep after withdrawn by nominator. |
Please post all new messages at the bottom of the page!
 Archives |
| 1, 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Protected
I have protected the article. When consensus us found, come find me and I'll unprotect. Protection will expire in one week automatically. Mercury 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked over the content dispute itself, however, are the parties interested in mediation? I'm available. Mercury 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Edit War? Geez, I think we would have worked this out in a few hours. We are in the middle of discussing matters. Hardly time for mediation. Pardon the pun, but you may have jumped the gun.--Cberlet 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Have not jumped gun. The protection stays for a few hours then. When you work it out, let me know or request unprotection. Edit summaries are not the proper place to have discussion. Mercury 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think that one editor deleting whole sections, other editors trying to eliminate this and that, and other editors reverting those edits constitutes edit-warring. There was no working this out "in a few hours." Thanks Mercury for handling this situation quickly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let's see, the final count is: Guettarda 3, Orangemarlin 3, BlueMoonlet 3, FeloniousMonk 2, Cberlet 2, Mike Doughney 1. One of my reverts was followed by an attempt to improve the text that had been deleted, and another was to repair the reference list which had been damaged by the previous edit (and is now back in that state, by the way). I'm sure others felt their actions justified as well. In any case, it certainly qualifies as an edit war, and Mercury's action was entirely justified. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So BlueMoonlet we're counting? Nice uncivil comment by you. Please don't stand on your high horse any longer. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry, but I have no idea how you are interpreting anything I said as uncivil. Please explain. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for the offer of mediation. I don't think it's needed as of right now, but it might be needed soon. Revolutionaryluddite 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:SYNTH?
Does the section violate WP:SYNTH? Maybe--maybe not. All sorts of articles have text that summarizes existing published sources. Several of the authors cited in the entry point out there are different definitions of the term. Several of the authors cited in the entry are critical of how some other authors use the term. To me a real encyclopedia does, in fact, help readers by exploring this sorts of issues -- and I find the discussion of the different uses of the term very useful. I think the text can be fixed. I think fixing the text makes more sense that simply flagging everything or deleting it all.--Cberlet 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where the idea of just replacing all the citations with 'fact' tags and all the personal attacks started, but the original point made in objection was that the section didn't have any real secondary sources-- it was basically just a list of links to using the term dominionist in the popular media way rather than the religously scholarly way. I don't think it violated WP:SYN, but I think it needed more sources. I also agree with you that the section shouldn't just be removed wholesale without the oppourtinity given for revision.Revolutionaryluddite 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The section drew a conclusion that Hedges et al misused/misapplied the term and relied solely on their own articles, primary sources, to support it. That's the very defiinition of synthesis according to WP:SYNTH. Until notable and neutral reliable sources are provided that Hedges, Yurica, etc are misusing or misapplying the term, it's not going back into the article because barring such sources it remains original research. Furthermore, there are far more popular sources that state and imply that Hedges' and Yurica's use of the term is the common usage, something that will need to be included in the intro regardless of the outcome of the section in question. FeloniousMonk 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- My first action after you raised this issue was to remove the problematic phrases that cast aspersions on the usage of Hedges et al. At that time I thought the point you've just made was quite valid and I commended you for making it. However, the version we've been bandying about since then does not have the problem you are raising. It no longer comes anywhere close to characterizing this usage as misuse or misapplication, but just states how they use the term in a way that I have a hard time believing is controversial. The point could perhaps be supplemented with a few direct quotes, which might alleviate your SYNTH concerns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone disputing that there are three main usages for the term "Dominionism"?
- Dominion Theology such as Christian Reconstructionism
- A tendency within conservative Christian evangelicalism and apocalyptic Catholic conservatism toward a type of Christian Nationalism often involving elements of theocratic political power
- The primary ideology, methodology and goals of the Christian Right in general
Does anyone dispute that there is no significant scholarly support for the latter usage?
If no dispute, then showing the reader which authors use which usage is useful and appropriate, and we just need to tinker with the text. We already cite citics of usages #2 and #3 in the text, and we can add cites pro and con if they are found in reputable published sources.--Cberlet 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I always thought #2 was the official definition (such as there is one) of Dominionism. As for #3, there are Christians who may be right wing (say they believe in Republican attitudes towards taxation) but socially liberal. I think trying to expand the usage is POV problem. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Here is the thing, it is not up to us to declare that the reputable published sources that claim #3 is the proper definition for "Dominionism" are wrong. I think they are wrong, you think they are wrong, but how do we explore all three usages on this entry page in an NPOV way? That's what we need to do. It is not our POV that is the problem, it is that three usages are current.--Cberlet 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If no one disagrees with Cberlet, can we unprotect the page and let him fix it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You have to be a lot more proactive in seeking opinions than that. Frankly, I don't spend a lot of time on discussions of contentious articles, because it is a big waste of time. Arguments tend to be "blah blah" "no, blah blah" "yes blah blah". Who cares? So if you're going to unilaterally decide to do one thing or another, based on a grand total of three opinions, you're going to end up in another edit war. Go seek opinions from most editors like me who edit the article but could care less about these tendentious and dull talk pages (not that I think this one is, it's just they're all sounding the same, probably a serious weakness of Wikipedia). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is rather mind-boggling. Yes, editing WP in a way that gets things right is hard work. If a person doesn't care enough to discuss issues with other editors and seek consensus, then that person should not be editing the page. Consensus is based on the opinions of all who care to join the conversation -- number is irrelevant. It's not my job to canvass, especially for people who have already participated in this conversation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyway, you're here now. Why don't you enlighten us with your opinion on the matter at hand, if you wish to have it considered? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Grant quote
The quote from George Grant, recently added by Jim62sch, is a fine one and deserves to be in the article. However, I contend that it pertains only to one form of Dominionism (I added two sources labeling Grant a Reconstructionist), and thus does not belong in the intro. Placing it in the intro leaves the impression that everyone on the list is out for "World conquest," which is a remarkable claim to say the least. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is a very good quote. I'm uncomfortable with having it in the intro section. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Francis Schaeffer
Here's an interview with Francis Schaeffer's son which will be of interest to contributors here on Schaeffer and the Christian Right. A quote:
- JW: He was talking about real life, not just pie-in-the-sky.
- FS: That’s right. And I’m hoping that my book, aside from humanizing dad, will also redeem his reputation as someone who was known for something better than simply being a leader in the Religious Right. He really was known as a thinker.
- JW: Are you saying that Francis Schaeffer wouldn’t be part of the Christian Right?
- FS: Yes. He has been used by people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others to give some respectability to points of view that really were not his. What made my dad’s heart beat fastest was talking about people’s philosophical presuppositions and how they lived. He wanted to put people’s lives back together again, people who had problems. The politicized view of him is illegitimate.
- JW: But you have to admit that your father helped change the face of evangelical fundamentalism. Before then, no one was involved. Then he did Whatever Happened to the Human Race?''', which was the beginning of Christian Protestantism’s involvement in the abortion issue. Thus, evangelical opposition to abortion was really started with your father.
- FS: That’s right.
- JW: In fact, you and your dad spearheaded all that. You changed the face of evangelical Christianity.
- FS: I talk about some of that in the book. But I can’t say that for sure.
- JW: I can say it.
- FS: What I can say is that there would not have been a Religious Right as it became known, including the make-up of the Republican Party, without the involvement of my dad, myself, Dr. C. Everett Koop, you and those of us who were in on all this at the very beginning. My book discusses some of the unintended consequences. My father never would have pictured a day when his work would help lay a foundation for the anti-gay, anti-homosexual campaign being carried out by people like James Dobson and others. Those were not his issues. They were not his concerns. Dad was very narrowly focused. The issues that got him, me and people like you involved were very narrowly focused. And it was Roe v. Wade and all the fallout that came from that court decision.
--Flex (talk/contribs) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opposition to dominionism
The polar opposite of dominionism is secular humanism, a tendency among liberals and atheists ... The parallels are chilling. Or is this just me putting 2 and 2 together (WP:OR)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Mike Doughney (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Flag
I appreciate User:Eleland adding some refs after my request. What I see here is the same partisan view of the topic (exemplified by Moser of Rolling Stone) that not everyone agrees with, and that this article is trying to portray in its proper context. To put the Christian flag at the top of the article is to assume that this view of Dominionism is correct. However, I have no problem with including it at the section "Persons and organizations described as dominionist", where this viewpoint is given free rein, and I'll even expand the caption somewhat. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Original research in need of reliable secondary sources, or deletion
The following text cites two primary sources:
"They cite the Treaty with Tripoli (1796) passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,"[1] and George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas, in which Washington defended religious freedom for Jews ("For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"[2])."
The claim that "they cite..." these sources is original research. These sources say nothing about who cites them, why, or how these sources would relate to the subject of this article. Either reliable secondary sources need to be cited that show that these sources are in fact used as claimed, or this text needs to be deleted. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- After no one came forward with any secondary sources, I deleted the above text. Guettarda was reverted this deletion with the edit summary "That's ridiculous", but still we have no reliable secondary sources. I would encourage him to either come up with such sources that support the assertions made in the text, or to read WP:OR rather than engaging in knee-jerk reverts that violate WP policy. If you have reliable secondary sources, then of course, the text should stay. If you don't, it is ridiculous that anyone would argue to the contrary... if they are familiar with the policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your recent deletion, Frjohnwhiteford, was basic edit warring. The two texts are well known and often cited. This was a clear case of a POV deletion. Constructive and collaborative editing is not gaming the system by deleting material you dislike a few days after a cite request. Either wait longer or do the work yourself--finding cites in reputable published sources was easy. --Cberlet (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Chip, I asked for the cites. I patiently waited for them. They were not forthcoming. I deleted the text, since it lacked such cites. You have now provided them, and I have no problem with the text as it now stands. I find it interesting that you claim that my deletion was POV pushing, because I clearly recall you deleting a portion of this same section on the same basis, in this edit. It is not my job to find sources for other people's edits, and I don't believe you waited long at all to make your deletion, nor did you bother taking the matter to the talk page first. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh, please. I deleted text cited to an AOL personal home page. You deleted text cited to Yale University, and the Library of Congress, the latter of which included commentary that was clearly not "original research," and spoke to the issue. A weekend is hardly "patience." Seriously, you "doth protest too much, methinks...."--Cberlet (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The web page you deleted contained the actual text of the decision. The texts that I deleted were original texts. One of them also included some commentary, but not commentary that supported the assertions in the text. Now, you have provided texts that do, and that is fine. Citing original sources to support your own conclusions violates WP:OR regardless of the quality of the web site that re-produces the original source. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
I have no comment on edit-warring, which is always bad. The Clarkson reference may go some way towards resolving Frjohn's complaint, but still I would prefer to delete that entire paragraph (not that I would do so without consensus) as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not one reference in that paragraph (with the possible exception of the Clarkson article that Cberlet just added) makes a connection between Jefferson's views and Dominionism. I have said before that there should be a page on Religion and politics in the United States, where all manner of "Christian nationalists" and "anti-disestablishmentarians" and the like can be properly discussed without applying labels rejected by those so labeled. This page should focus on the narrow topic of the term "Dominionism" and how it's used, and is no substitute for a general discussion of the former topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good point. What about the already existing Separation_of_church_and_state? Wouldn't the text fit there? Then we could just add a link stating that some critics see a problem concerning dominionism and church/state issues and link it. Or do you think there is enough content for a whole new page?--Cberlet (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I certainly wouldn't object to moving the text there. Another possibility is Christian right. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bush, Falwell, and theonomy
Here's a quote from a recent op-ed in The Washington Post that has some relevance here:
- Yet didn't George Bush and other Republican politicians accept the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.
- The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.
It is written by one of Bush's former speech writers (now a WaPo op-ed columnist), and in forming a comparison between Bush and Falwell vs. Barak Obama and his radical minister, it contains a rejection of some of the views dominionist conspiracy theorists attribute to the Christian Right. Perhaps it doesn't warrant inclusion here, but I'll leave that up to you all. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
