Talk:Dominionism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Great Commission/Make/Teach

Why was the section comparing the different Bible versions taken out? The one that compared new translations saying "go and make disciples of all nations" with older more passive language like "therefore, and teach all nations"

Isn't this relevant?

Misc

Edited to avoid an NPOV dispute ("The Dominionist movement has been clandestine; As Theocracy Watch (http://www.theocracywatch.org) points out...")

"Significant number"

The asssertion that there exists a "significant number" of leading American politicians who are Dominionist has no place in the article; in the absence of credible documentation, it is hopelessly POV. The idea that there are a "significant number" of American politicans who are supported by those who hold this viewpoint is a different assertion entirely; one has very limited control over who one's supporters are; it is highly unlikely that John Kerry sought or appreciated the public support which he received from some members of the Communist Party, USA. Just because some conspiracy theory website says that there are lots of such people doesn't make it so. Representing this movement as something that has widespread support even among Christian fundamentalists is incorrect. This is a fringe movement; while this George Grant does exist and may feel this way, this doesn't equate to his having widespread support. This is like saying that "significant numbers of earth scientists now largely deny the Theory of Evolution" and then citing one non-mainstream scientist as "proof", or that the existence of the League of the South proves that there are soon likely to be millions of Southerners in the streets demanding independence.

Also, there may be people in this movement who see it as "clandestine," but several non-mainstream people of the Religious Right have been openly saying things like this for several years. The article as it was seemed like a great example of "McCarthyism of the left", seeing a Bible-totin', Scripture quotin', fire-breathin' Fundamentalist waiting to revoke the Constitution under every rock, instead of a Communist. That this movement exists is undeniable, but to present it as a clear and present danger to the Republic is pretty ludicrous, and is just as likely to be the result of another agenda.

Rlquall 13:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What version of the article are you referring to when you write "The article as it was"? How does the current article present an anti-dominionist perspective? Where does the current article describe the Dominionist political movement "as a clear and present danger to the Republic"?
First of all, please sign your comment. Secondly, I went on and made some changes to the article to lessen this POV, but am not really interested in a throughgoing rewrite, only fairness. If you would please check the article's history and read the previous versions critically, you will see what I mean. Thanks. Rlquall 00:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Dominionism

This article was previously at Dominionist. Belief systems are generally listed in Wikipedia under the name of the belief system, not the word for an adherent thereof: Christianity, Communism, and so forth. --FOo 05:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why I rewrote this page

I am a critic of Dominionism, but this page was way over the top in terms of violating NPOV. Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are not the same thing. A subset chart would look like this:

Triumphalism
Dominionism
Dominion Theology
Christian Reconstructionism

The specific meanings are different in important ways. Some national Republican political figures are Dominionist, but few are believers in Dominion Theology, and I can't think of any who are actually Christian Reconstructionist, although it is possible one or two are. --Cberlet 14:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What evidence is there that "soft" dominionism is dominionism at all?

Soft dominionism looks like little more that political activism, and may be based on mere new testiment stewardship principles (of the vote for instance, and of submission to God given authority) rather than the old testament dominion passage.--Silverback 10:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that different people use different definitions of the terms. The earliest writers made a clear distinction among the various varieties of Dominionism, which I have tried to restore. I did not come up with the terms. There are some critics of the Christian Right that claim it is a Dominionist movement, then use the term as if it were the same thing as Christian Reconstructionism. This I think is easy to show to be a sloppy analysis. The wording now attempts a compromise, where a broader range of variation allows for greater accuracy, but reflects the range of ideas.
But the reassertion of political activism that was articulated by Schaeffer and then LaHaye needs a name, and since the 1980s the term Dominionism has been used to describe the renewed trend. The problem is the range in Dominionist ideas, thus writers began to talk about soft v. hard Dominionism, or Dominionism v. Theocratic Dominionism, or Dominionism v. Dominion Theology. That's why the page was split into Dominionism and Dominion Theology--to demonstrate that there were differences between Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism.
If folks want to add more about the idea of dominion/stewardship, that is certainly appropriate, but there also could be a longer discussion of Schaeffer and LaHaye and the line of Bible-based political activism. Otherwise, why did Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson write their book Blinded by Might?--Cberlet 15:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An afterthought. One alternative would be to make the terms Theocratic Dominionism, and Dominion Theology redirect to this page on Dominionism and expand the discussion to include the fact that for the vast majority of Christians the "dominion over the earth" Biblical verse is seen as a call to stewardship. That would put this all in a better context. But this would not mean deleting the views of the liberal and left critics of Dominionism, even if they tend to use the word improperly to imply it is the same thing as Christian Reconstructionism. There is a whole conference on Dominionism coming up in NYC in late April and featuring religion author Karen Armstrong.--Cberlet 16:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Silverback, the reason there is a discussion page is so that people actually discuss edits.--Cberlet 20:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But since these terms are being developed by the critics who fear monger over dominionism, and then describe the pro-life Christian right as "soft" dominionists. This has the intellectual content of fearmongering and daemonizing (legitimately) over fascism which is no practical threat, and then labeling Republicans as fascists (hmmm, not even soft fascists). If the soft dominionists don't share the hard tenets that justify the fearmongering, it is a bit like comparing Kerry to Hitler because they share a disdain for communism.--Silverback 04:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE put new comments at the end of sections and if possible at the bottom of the page.
The job here on Wikipedia is not to settle disputes by taking a side, but to fairly and accurately report on disputes. Your opinion does not belong on a text entry, nor does any original research. If you want to make a point, you have to look eleswhere on the Internet or (GASP!) actual books or journal articles, or substantial newspaper or magazine articles for someone who has made an argument of established a fact.
The terms Dominionism and Dominion Theology come out of evangelicalism, not critics of the Christian Right. The idea that there was a broader "dominionist impulse" goes back to at least 1992 and the book by Bruce Barron, Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology, published by the Christian publishing house, Zondervan. Even earlier, Sara Diamond had raised the issue in her book Spiritual Warfare. Here is what Barron wrote:
"As we will see, [Pat] Robertson's explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors what we will call a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism."
I happen to agree that many liberals have been sloppy in conflating a "dominionist impulse" with Dominion Theology--primarily Christian Reconstructionism. This page attempts to make these distinctions clear. What is not appropriate, is to say the page is wrong because the liberals are wrong.--Cberlet 14:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Who is "Barron"? You will find that on the talk page people interleave comments close to the particular text they are responding to as a courtesy to readers so they can immediately see the responses to points that are being made and have them be in context. You only go to the end of a section for new topics or more general responses. The practice I have when I visit a talk page is to look at the history, and then compare my last contribution, or the last time I had read the page with the current version. This way i don't miss any of these interleaved contributions. --Silverback 17:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a simple reading of the actual text page would have revealed, Barron is : "Barron, Bruce. 1992. Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. ISBN: 0310536111." There was a typo in my comment above, which I have now fixed and put in bold so you can find it. --Cberlet 20:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


All this talk about Christian Conservatives wanting to replace the Constitution with the Bible is nothing but Left-Wing McCarthyism. The last thing we need to see is a religious institution running the affairs of state because it harms both. If what my friends on the Christian Right want is a theocracy, then that's what the founders left us with because courts cited Christian morality as the impetus for their decisions well into the early 20th century. [1]

I could imagine the howling if Pat Robertson or James Dobson were to say the ACLU or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wanted to create a Soviet-style atheist state and send traditionalist Chritians and Jews to the gulags.

[User:Pravknight]]--Pravknight 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Trotskyism?

What serious political commentator compares the Christian Right to Trotskyism?--Cberlet 03:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncited opinions and POV

This page now has cited material critical of Dominionism, and then rambling uncited theological statements by an editor who is an "elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church." This is not appropriate. If supporters of reform or orthodox Presbyterianism want to provided cites and quotes to make these or other points critical of the concept of Dominionism, that is proper. But to insert uncited original research and POV opinion is not proper.--Cberlet 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, totally disputed is certainly descriptive of my views of the rants you have "cited" for credibility. I'll work on providing quotes to support the statements, but once again, you misrepresent me by supposing that I am writing as a "supporter of reform" or of "orthodox Presbyterianism". Once again, I'll look expectantly beyond all of this posturing in the hope that a decent collaborative effort will eventually arise, with patience. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you cite actual published material supporting your claims, I will not call them "rants." For you to call what I have cited "rants" makes it clear you are writing as a critic of the views they express. I am a critic of Dominionism, but I don't call actual cites disputing what I cite "rants," and I don't insert original research into this page trying to discredit views with which I disagree. When you cease doing this, we can begin a constructive effort to make this page accurately reflect multiple viewpoints. --Cberlet 00:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can call them as I see them, in Talk. My problem with your "cites" is that they make nonsense of the essay. Since these logical problems are invisible to you, even when I point them out (you call them "rambling uncited theological statements" gee, that's kind of harsh), I guess you'll have to wait until I have time to look up someone else who will say the same thing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I will simply re-edit based on what is cited. Feel free to add material when you have time. It is not up to you to decide what is "logical" in a criticism written by a published author with a doctorate in sociology.--Cberlet 01:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You continue to misrepresent me, and it's getting hard to ignore. I am not speaking code here, this is easy to follow. Surely you understand that it was not a "criticism" that I'm objecting to, but an illogically placed definition. The citation appeared in the context to be placed as supporting the distinction between "general" dominionism, and "theocratic" dominionism. It did not support this distinction, it contradicted it. Consequently, it contradicted a primary structural theme of the essay, which was that there are distinct groups which should not be conflated. You are tilting at windmills. Anyway, I appreciate that you now seem to understand at least some of my complaints against the earlier version of the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a very hard time understanding your points, and when you are patronizing, it does not encourage me to make the effort. I have tried to include more balanced material, and tried to understand your points and address them fairly. I am not trying to misrepresent you. The post above is almost unintelligible to me. I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps this is all me, but could you please include some actual text and then complain about it rather than talking in floating generalities? Please?--Cberlet 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patronizing? I have a hard time believing that you are not trolling - have you actually read what you have been writing in answer to what I have been writing? aargh ... I must fight the temptation to read such things into what you are doing here. Hopefully, this annoying, slippery misunderstanding will soon evaporate. Let's drop that and go on to the next annoyance. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gen 1:26-28

Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind dominion over the Earth. Many consider this a mandate for stewardship rather than the assertion of total control. A more aggressive interpretation of this verse is seen as a command that Christians bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God, as they understand it. This is related to the Great Commission to convert all nations.

What do you mean to say, here?

  • "stewardship rather than the assertion of total control" implies ... what, about "dominionists"? That they think the dominion mandate means "total control"? Do you think that this is the clearest way of expressing what is distinctive about the group described?
"God, in creating man, ordered him to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over the earth. Man, in attempting to establish separate dominion and automomous jurisdiction over the earth, fell into sin and death" (Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 3)

That's R.J. Rushdoony. You don't get more authentically "Dominionist" than him. He does not say that the dominion mandate is about "total control". So, where did you get that? Rather, he says that "separate dominion" and "autonomous jurisdiction" is wrong, and exercising stewardship of the earth, presumably including onesself, under the rule of God, is right. "under the rule of God" is the idea that matters, here.

  • "This is related to the Great Commission to convert all nations." How sure are you, that this communicates what you mean? Does it mean that whoever seeks to convert all nations is a Dominionist?
  • Here is Rushdoony again, who does say that the "cultural mandate" is related to the Great Commission:
"The cultural mandate is ... the obligation of covenant man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it under God (Gen 1:26-28) ... all enemies of Christ in this fallen world must be conquered, (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginationns and every high thing that exalteth iteself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (II Cor. 10:4-6)" (ibid. p. 724-725)
"In his ascension, Jesus underscored again the creation mandate, declaring ... (Matt. 28:18-20)" i.e., the Great Commission ( ibid. 729)

This straight-line connection between Genesis 1:28 and the Great Commission, is Christian Reconstructionism by definition. It is Christian Reconstructionism in a nutshell. So, did you mean to say that all Dominionists are Christian Reconstructionists? From the Talk, I wouldn't have thought so - and yet, you restored, and reinforced the inference, that this is the case. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible sophistry.--Cberlet 03:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good grief, sir. I am asking you, do you know what that key paragraph is saying? Does it say exactly what you meant? Do you mean to say, as this paragraph does say, that "Dominionism" is simply equivalent to "Christian Reconstructionism" ? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to weed out problems - just guessing at what you mean by "incomprehensible sophistry". Do you follow the question now? Do you recognize that, if the paragraph quoted above is supposed to describe Christian Reconstructionism, it is correct; but if it is supposed to describe Dominionism generally, it over-reaches. Did you mean to describe Reconstructionism? Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sophistry has a clear meaning. We are not engaged in a battle of wits that seeks to demonstrate who can be the more omphaloskeptic, or who can best replicate the style and detail of the apologia of Justin Martyr. I am explicitly arguing that Dominionism is a broad general trend, with one sector of the trend representing Dominion Theology, one version of which is Christian Reconstructionism. I think the current text now states this. It did not always, and the current version is much clearer. You are engaged in a tortured sophistry to create straw arguments to puff away. Please try not to be so patronizing. You clearly are smart and have done a lot of research. So have many editors on Wiki. I have read Schaeffer, Rushdoony, LaHaye (non-fiction and fiction) and others. I have been quoted urging liberal critics of Dominionism to refrain from hyperbolic claims that can be used to demonize Christians. This page is written in plain English, not theological rhetoric. Let's keeo it that way. And I urge you to revisit the Wiki policy about not insering original research.--Cberlet 13:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are without doubt the most suspicious person I've encountered here. I sincerely want to know the answer, so that I can work with you. I really do not know what I am saying that is coming across as "sophistry" or "patronizing".
  • When you say "Most Christians interpret ..." are you including "Most Dominionists" ? If so, is that sentence necessary? It does not describe something that a Dominionist would disagree with.
  • "Total control" is not what Dominionism is about, distinctively. It is about exercising stewardship "under the rule of God". Do you have someone in mind who says that this isn't the case?
  • Reconstructionism is the equation of the Great Commission with the "cultural mandate" of Genesis 1:28. That is its most basic distinctive, to which is added the continuing applicability of the sanctions of Mosaic Law. I am not making this up. When Rushdoony says that in giving the Great Commission, Jesus "underscored again the creation mandate", he is saying something distinctive, readily identifiable, and profoundly controversial. Is it your purpose in that paragraph to describe Reconstructionism ? (This is not a challenge - honestly - I do not know how to inject any more sincerity into this page). I have no problem with it, if that is what you mean to do. I'm just contemplating making this intention clearer, with your help.
Please help me to work with you, by either answering my questions, or by letting my edit stand when I change the paragraph. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree with your obscurantist interpretations of plain English sentences. The current text is a compromise that tries to fairly represent the divergent views of many writers. You clearly disagree with many of the articles by critics of Dominionism listed in the external links section. It is not appropriate for you to engage in arguments with these writers using your own theological arguements. If you can find quotes from people that challenge the views with which you disagree, simply insert them. But this is not a page where you get to insert your own original research simply because you disagree with material that is properly cited and linked. I have repeatedly tried to respond to your concerens by rewriting, inserting, and rearranging text. I have found and inserted quotes that contradict what I think about this topic. You, on the other hand, write long essays about angels dancing on the heads of pins, and then challenge me to pick the number of angels. It is not a game that I intend to play. Please try to edit using Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 15:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why are you being so argumentative? I do not understand. I am working with you, because you have inserted your own language into the article. You are summarizing many writers, in doing so. I want to know what you mean, to avoid arguing with you. I am asking you to work with me to make the article both, more readable and more accurate. I am not arguing with you. I am pointing to distinctions that really matter, in distinguishing "Dominionism" from vanilla Evangelicalism, and "Reconstructionism" from Dominionism. Thank you for your attempts to work with my question to improve the paragraph, which you did despite evidently loathing my observations. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am working to make the article better, clearer, and more NPOV. I do this by editing the text. I am not interested in having obscure theological debates on the talk page. I understand your concerns, but I reject your contention that I can only respond by letting you frame questions for me to answer. What I am saying is the way you are framing the questions here on the talk page is highly biased and accusatory and generally consists of straw arguments. I obviously do not think evangelicalism, the Christian Right, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are the same thing. I find your questions insulting and misleading. I respond by constructively editing text rather then walking blindly into your intellectual traps.--Cberlet 16:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not setting any intellectual traps. Please tell me how I am insulting you, or misleading you. I am asking that you would clarify your intentions, so that when I make a change to the text it will not be interpreted as an argumentative edit. I do not distrust your edits. I have supported them. My task here on the Talk page is to persuade you to calm down and redirect your attention to the issue, instead of assailing me with a flurry of insults and accusations, frustrating my efforts to work with you. Do you support my effort to clarify a Reconstructionist use of the Great Commission; and would you agree that Rushdoony is cited appropriately? Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for a very constructive edit. Much easier process. In the sentence: "The theocratic form of Dominionism points to the Matthew 28:18, which records the supposed words of Jesus:" -- can we perhaps make the Bible sound less dubious as a source of what Jesus said? How about "The theocratic form of Dominionism points to the Matthew 28:18, where Jesus is reported to have said:" It sounds less skeptical.  :-) --Cberlet 16:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, skepticism is a POV that supposedly should be accomodated. As written, the paragraph was a long way from joining the Theocrats in declaring that Jesus is concerned with wresting secular authority in his name. It didn't even claim that Jesus said what the Bible says he did. However, if there is not objection, certainly I like it better to say "where Jesus is reported to have said:" Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think this is a language issue. "Supposed words of Jesus" to most English-speakers would imply skepticism that Jesus actually said those words." And out of curiosity, I know Schaeffer invited Rushdoony to Switzerland to debate theology; but were any of these debates or Schaeffer's comments about Rushdoony's theology ever published? Are they available in an archive? Otherwise the sentence may assume too much.--Cberlet 18:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The sentence says too much without support, I agree; but support will be forth-coming. If it's taken out in the meantime, I won't object. Something like, "He differed on a number of points from the founder of Reconstructionism, R.J. Rushdoony" would be a good enough place-holder, for references to be added later, if that's acceptable to you. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sure, I wasn't really objecting, as much as wondering if there was a print record of the disagreements. I have never seen one, but if it exists I would like to read it.  :-) --Cberlet 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've replaced the sentence with a limp-wristed wave of the hand in the general direction of future documentation. :-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would even be happy with a stronger statement about the differences between Schaeffer and Rushdoony, as well as the issue of postmill/premill --Cberlet 20:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian right, and its subset, Dominionism, and its subset, Reconstructionism

To explore distinctions like this, I would think that the article, Dominion Theology, would be the right place. But, that article right now assumes that "Dominionism" and "Dominion theology" are separate somehow. Unless this is a technical or academic distinction (in which case, it should be labelled such), Dominion theology is simply the theology of dominion, which is the distinctive characteristic of those Christians that this article is attempting to describe under "Dominionism". What are your thoughts about this ? Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are at least three distinct relatively coherent theologies of "hard" dominionism: Christian Reconstructionism, Kingdom Now, and Christian Identity. And previous writers (especially Diamond) have used the term Dominion Theology to only refer to this type of somewhat institutionalized theology, rather than "soft" generic versions of Dominionism put forward by Christian Right leaders such as Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson. So this is a technical distinction that has been used by some sociologists and scholarly writers, as well as some jounalists. --Cberlet 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Well, that's unfortunate in a way. Sociologists have to use terms in a more technical way, of course, but these peculiar uses of terminology have a way of dominating the discussion, and manipulating it, subtly. Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye both have their theological reasons for thinking that Christians ought to be involved in politics. "Dominionist" is a term of convenience, but descriptive enough - another example of academia intruding its categories into the debate, changing it. I can live with it. But what really describes these people is their theology, which informs their plans for reforming the civil government. It's too bad that they can be called "Dominionists", but their dominionism is somehow distinguished from their theology of dominion. Do you see what I mean? Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I do see what you mean, but I can't think of a way out of the problem of pre-existing uses of the terms other than to mention them. We may also have a language problem with the word "stewardship" which in the U.S. is used by evangelicals and denominational Protestants as a term that distinguishes them from Dominionists. As in, "they want to be dominating and bullies, we want to be careful stewards sensitive to the future and our role as caretaker." So the way "stewardship" is currently used is a problem. In the U.S. it is Stewards v. Dominionists. This is especially true in environmentalism. But this is not meant to be discouraging. The article is much better, more accurate, fairer, and clearer as the result of your edits, Mkmcconn. Thanks for that.
You are very kind to say so, Cberlet. I'm sorry for the early trouble and hope that I can avoid causing future disturbances. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should have tried harder to understand. My fault, really. Sorry.--Cberlet 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honing a finer edge

I am not sure many folks, especially non-Christians, are going to figure out what is being said here. Can we tease it out for a broader audience: "The dominionist interpretation sees here a command from God to all mankind to exercise a steward's authority, implying that all human authority is given by God, and is therefore subject to the rule of the Word of God." I'm a lefty Christian, so I get it, but it took a few readings.--Cberlet 20:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last edit might be more accomodating of colloquial English usage of the term, stewardship. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that helped a bunch. I have added some details and split up some sentences. It's longer, but I think it is clearer for a non-Christian, but you should give it another run through.--Cberlet 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the rewrite is excellent, thanks.--Cberlet 01:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic dominionism

The second half of the article is as important as the first, and certainly more central to the controversy, so that it deserves some attention. I intend to re-write it, which I'll just boldly do; but of course, I want it to be reviewed for the possibility that part or all of it may need to be reverted, if what I'm about to do gets us off to a bad start. So anyway ... here goes. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the edits so far have been thoughtful, and while I clearly fear the worst aspects of Dominionism, the edits have made the article clearer and more accessible, and a bit more fair.  :-) --Cberlet 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for working with me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Who are these anonymous critics (are there more than two) and what peer reviewed journal do they publish in?, why should we give them any space in wikipedia, as if study of dominionism is an established discipline? For instance who first theorized that Schaeffer was a domininionist? Or does he claim that label for himself? Is there controversy, in the journals about whether he is a dominionist or not? Where are the citations? Is there evidence in his writings or evidence from his library that he read Cornelius Van Til?

Does activism based "on a deep conviction that fundamentalist Christians are denied a political voice in America and are persecuted by a powerful and vengeful liberal majority. " qualify as dominionism, it doesn't seem to follow from the definition. Has a peer reviewed journal published this link?--Silverback 04:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really hate it when those NPOV notices go up prior to discussion; almost as much as I hate the thesis of this article. Not good wiki etiquette in my opinion. Cberlet is published. See his talk page for a discussion of his credentials. He, Diamond and Clarkson - and others - use this terminology. I do think that claim is very provocative, and not well-supported, that "Dominionism" is an accurate description of the Christian right. It is the way that this term is being used in the published works; and Cberlet has not used this page to blow his own horn (to his credit). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I think most articles should have NPOV labels just to keep readers on their toes. Opinions and characterizations and fearmongering should be attributed to these people then and not nameless critics. If they have an evidentiary basis for their opinions that should be given as well. Hopefully fearmongering about theocracy has more going for it than some on the Christian right having feeling of persecution and cooperating on a couple issues oriented initiatives.--Silverback 05:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Please remove the bullying banner. No one is resisting the effort toward neutrality. Until they do, please remove the banner. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Raise the particular factual and perspectival issues here. Remove the "POV" -and if you cannot get co-operation, then use the banner. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

POV editing

Very disappointing effort, on this last series of edits, in my opinion. I'm going to have to hold off until I can look at the result without being irritable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you think the previous text was disappointing? I'm raising legitimate issues. If dominionism is so broad, why are they emphasizing similarities to just one exteme? If dominionism is about Christ being granted dominion of all authority, why is the article about how the movement is motivated by fears of persecution? If common causes unite christians and non-christians in the movement, why is it being characterized as Christian dominionism at all? Is there peer reviewed material showing that moonies are Christian dominionists? If this is about dominionism, why does it appear to be a news story on right wing political coalitions united by something other than domininionist motives?--Silverback 07:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the issues you're raising. It's the terrible style that you use that is upsetting. You take clear and calm statements that give no hint of suggesting an opinion, and you change them into nervous disclaimers:
There are many different interpretations of this belief that create many varieties of Dominionism, which make it relatively a relatively useless label
Who cares what you think about how "useless" it is? Can't people simply read for themselves, and decide?
...emphasize their similarities by a comparison to the more extreme points of view, often achieving a perjorative effect, without also showing that they also have similarities to more moderate and even secular points of view.
Again, why should anyone care to read your critique of this point of view? Not only do you insert these comments in an argumentative way (which lowers their credibility enormously - as though you can't bear to have the opposing view expressed without stealing their point), you also have no source for these statements. This is your own critique.
And so on. This is not how to help with a controversial article. It takes research, not opinions, to make it more informative and balanced. Lazy contributions will be reverted as soon as your opponents notice what you have done - it is unnecessary. If you know that these views have a counter-point, then go out and find it, source it, and insert it within the flow of the essay. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
There were no cites for the previously opinions that were expressed. Putting, the characterizations (not opinions BTW, these are objectively defensible characterizations), into the text makes it clear to future editors what intellectual hurdles they have to overcome with citations if they want to disparage an essentially issues oriented political coalition with this attempt at a conspiracy theory. Yes, some politically active Christians share biblical interpretations with some so far nameless theocrats. But why compare the moderate with the extreme if not to support a POV? Why not compare the extreme with the moderate, and point out that some nameless "theocrats" share a belief in limited constitutional government with conservatives. The rhetorical technique is transparent and should not be allowed into an article just because a fringe academic focus, spins it that way.--Silverback 07:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Refer to the references to find the outline of the views described. Call for sources to be cited to support statements of fact. Cite critiques appropriately. But, don't lower the quality of the article just to give people something to do. Don't quote yourself as though just expressing your opinion is "objectively defensible characterizations". That's not what is meant by self-evident. Separate points from counter-point, to prevent readibility and comprehension problems. Avoid weak arguments. "Why not compare the extreme with the moderate"? because, no one worries about moderates. Nobody holds seminars and gives speeches about moderates. No one gets famous publishing papers about moderates. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
If you think comparison with the extreme is legitimate academically, then such comparisons should not just assert similiarity, but should be specific about what aspect is similar. For instance, liberals are very similar to Hitler (in the number of thumbs they have on their right hand). Comparisons should be qualified.--Silverback 08:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

More POV editing

The issue is not whether you agree, or whether you think this or that writer is "notable enough". I almost never revert articles for POV editing; yours are an egregious exception, in my opinion; and because I am sympathetic to your point of view, I am hoping that you will listen to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For at least some naive proof that this terminology is rapidly spreading, and that this article uses it appropriately (and not originally), and for evidence of the credibility of its various proponents, see this Google test. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How is the google test relevant to my edits (which I assume you were referring to)? If one wants to criticise the Christian Right from the POV of dominionism, then why talk about persecution and other other things which are not part of the definition dominionism. If one becomes active be one feels persecuted, that is not becoming active because of dominionism?
On the Diamond front, the view she stated is prevalent and called dominionism, was essentially reconstructionism which elsewhere was admitted to be extreme and a view that practically noone self identifies as. If that is the case, then how could she have determined it is prevalent? Frankly, the Diamond text did not make sense, it was mere assertions. I can reconsider, if we actually have some of the evidence or basis for her assertions. Writing in Zmagazine or publishing a book is not enough to make her a source of uncheckable facts.--Silverback 17:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The reason that they do this, is because it is a conspiracy theory. The Google test is only intended to show that the conspiratorial view dominates this interpretation of Christian involvement in politics. As with any conspiracy theory, the weakness it suffers from is failure to distinguish associations from influences, and the conflation of coincidental similarities. Diamond, Clarkson and Berlet are quoted all over the place - that's the purpose of the Google test. In this case, it doesn't matter so much how academically credible the view is. Its credentials are not the primary reason for its influence. Please restore the Diamond quote. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It helps to read the entire text of the books by Diamond (4 titles), Barron, and Clarkson before jumping to conclusions about what they say about Dominionism and its relationship to Reconstructionism. User:Mkmcconn|Mark has done an excellent job of balancing this article. The series of articles on Dominionism, Dominion Theology, the Christian Right, and Christian Reconsructionism, have all improved with edits from people who disagree, but who have found a way to cooperate to show multiple viewpoints. Simply deleting material or saying it is not valuable when it has wide public circulation in published form is not useful. Reputable published claims should not simply be deleted --Cberlet 22:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"the term implies an alliance between moderates and radicals"

Has dominionism been redefined? When did the term start implying an alliance? The implication does not seem to follow from the definition. Does it imply an alliance for the the whole spectrum of dominionism, for soft dominionism and for hard dominionism? Does soft dominionism "allying" with hard dominionism imply that the soft are with the hard all the way to theocracy? Or only on an issue that also attracts a diversity of kinds of supporters? How necessary is this new feature of dominionism? What if we find evidence that moderates and radicals are not allied, does that mean that one or the other is not subject to the label of dominionism? What if the radicals are allied with the moderates, but the moderate don't want them as allies? Do the critics still view them as an "alliance"? --Silverback 23:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This struck me as a decent point. I changed the sentence to say that the use of the term "Dominionism" implies the direct influence of radicals upon the moderates in the Religious Right. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-dominionism

This article is now clearly stating that there are few people who are self-proclaimed Dominionists, but many more people who are against what they fear to be a dominionst trend. With that in mind, whouldn't this article be renamed "Anti-Dominionism" as the reaction to Christian Reconstructionism. MPS 00:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the term has been used by sociologists and other scholars for over 12 years. It is used by many Christians critical of the concept. This is not an uncommon circumstance.--Cberlet 02:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Move to Political Christianity

Because I believe Dominionism is a POV term, I moved it to Political Christianity. Let's discuss this before you revert it again. 24.125.34.26 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What you did was a cut and paste move and is against policy and breaks GFDL. It has to be reverted and the move done via the move button. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Broken S 02:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Political Christianity" is less problematic. Dominionism is an easily recognizable term, that has been used throughout the debate, at least since House and Ice's book "Dominion Theology: Blessing or curse?" back in 1988. Criticism of the Reconstructionism and its theology of dominion has been around since at least the mid-1970s. Christian America ideas have had critics since before there was an America. Tying the Great Commission to the Biblical Law as a basis of government has been opposed at least since Calvin's criticisms of the idea. If there is any article that this one should be merged with, it is Christian Reconstructionism.
My problem with the term as it is used in these related articles, is that it seems to have been adopted by people who don't know or care about the way that these terms have been used in the past. As a result, "Dominionism" has somehow, illogically, been distinguished from "Dominion Theology"; and furthermore, these terms are distinguished from "Christian Reconstructionism" and its stream of thinking, contrary to the use of this terminology, prior to certain critics' recent appropriation of it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with much of what Mark says, but the problem is that there are a number of scholars and journalists who do make proper distinctions, who use the term "Dominionism" in a generic sense, and the term "Dominion Theology" only to refer to movements that are theocratic or theonomic. The term has much current usage. Just because some people argue it should only be used to refer to "Domionion Theology" does not negate the fact that others use the term "Dominionism" in a generic sense. And this usage goes back at least to 1989 in Sara Diamond's book on the Christian Right, "Spiritual Warfare," where she aergued that "Christian Reconstructionism" had generated a broader concept of "Dominion Theology," that had influenced the Christian Right and moved it toward what she later called a softer form of "Dominionism" that crossed denominational, eschatological, and political boundaries.--Cberlet 15:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we need to acknowledge the fact that people make distinctions this way; but it is confusing, and it results in groups being categorized together in a sloppy way, so that they end up being compared to one another in terms that are native only to some sub-groups but foreign or implicitly antithetical to the others. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And yet, as Wiki editors, we cannot impose our view by censoring information and language from reputable scholars and journalists whyo use the term "Dominionism" in the generaic sense, and I have spent months trying to navigate the tension between people who use the term "Dominionism" to demonize the Christian Right, and people who want to delete the term entirely from the dictionary. So what we end up with is the question, how do we make this entry better?--Cberlet 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Be assured that I admire your fight for accuracy.
My concern is the common problem that occurs as definitions drift and blur through invented uses: scholarship is then forced to study itself. Ideas become attributed to false origins; so that when similar ideas appear in more than one place, the influence of the credited group (e.g. Reconstructionism) is exaggerated. Consequently, the points of departure which define the criss-crossing influences are lost sight of. This is most obvious in the article "Dominion theology". It is not at all clear to me what that article is about, because it is not theological in the slightest.
To solve the problem would require a much longer and deeper view than seems to be available from the people who use the terms this way. Even if we only want to narrow the focus to politics, which seems to be all that matters to many critics, even this would require an account of how such diverse historical identities, theology, and theory have pooled together and mingled.
For example, to call "Dominionist" a nationalist organization, like the "National Reform Association", is just such a weird anachronism and blurring of distinctions. The NRA makes selective use of Reconstructionist writings and the critics say "aha!"; but the fact that this organization (or the publication which the organization exists to publish) was founded in 1864 should at least make someone go "hmmm!".
The more they study, the more critics will realize the mistakes introduced by their approach. You are much more familiar with those critics than I am. Assuming that these articles accurately reflect the current state of their scholarship, to improve the articles, we are constrained to observing their progress: because the subject of this study is to a very real extent invented by their studies. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

User: 208.27.111.130. Please stop this campaign of unexplained deletions and rewrites that remove valid criticisms of ther Christian Right and dominionism.--Cberlet 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

European Dominionist Parties

I've noticed that the the dutch Political Reformed Party and the European European Christian Political Movement have been placed in dominionist categories. I don't think that's right. The parties do not call themselves dominionist, or have intensive contacts with American dominionist parties. They may seem similar or have similar political goals, but that's like putting the U.S. Democratic party in a social-democratic category, just because they are both proponents of some kind of welfare state. If any body can give me a reference showing that the SGP or the ECPM are/call themselves dominionist, please convince me.

What I propose as a solution is creating the category:European Christian Political Movement, which includes all ECPM members, and a reference in the ECPM article that ECPM member parties are similar to dominionist parties, tendencies and organizations in the U.S. - C mon 08:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV max

Laced throughout this article is the idea that Calvinism, and Evangelicalism generally, are somehow totalitarian. First, various groups are called "dominionist" that aren't. Secondly, dominionist groups have nowhere the strength claimed. Moreover, most dominionist groups do NOT advocate violence at all, much less like that advocated by fundamentalist Muslims. Most dominionists see a day of SELF-submission en masse, not a day of the sword. This article is largely from a secularistically critical POV; not having the more accurate nuance that a Christian critic gives from inside. Most of the people and groups mentioned seek nothing more than is sought by historically Roman Catholic (and in some parts Calvinistic) Christian Democracy, which doesn't seem to engender the wrath that newer politically-active evangelicalism does (though they are largely the same). I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson, not because he envisions a Christian America, but because he lacks discernment to the point of quackery sometimes. If America were to become Christian, it would be a good thing, as long as it is tied to a love of freedom, not oppression.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) — I am striking this comment because it is a mix of true statements, and over-reaction, and lack of knowledge regarding the progressive trajectory of refinement of the article. Don't get me wrong, this article needs a lot a lot of work to become NPOV, but it would be best for me to engage first. I still think the newer Dominionist political parties article and the Template:Dominionism should be deleted per the AfD and TfD. Also, the charges of "gastroturfing" from my critics are really out of bounds (in many ways).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're the one doing the POV ax grinding here, not the article. The NPOV tag is not justified here; the article seems fine and is well-supported. The tag needs to come down. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to me to be balanced when taken overall. If Guðsþegn has issues with particular statements or claims perhaps he could identify them. An NPOV tag on the whole article does not seem to eb warranted, since it is an encyclopaedic treatment of a term in current use and apparently documented in the literature. partial birth abortion is also a term coined by detractors, but the article on it is encyclopaedic enough. Just zis Guy you know? 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of POV, shouldn't the redlink to "papalism" be removed? Would not any article posted under that heading be likely to be either hopelessly unencyclopedic POV or, if not, then a candidate for merger with Catholicism or Roman Catholic Church?Rlquall 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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   – UTEX – 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a genuine campaign. We haven't had one of these since Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What campaign? I did exactly what the article on creating TFDs said to do, nothing more. I notified everyone who had talked on the relevant talk pages, including people who I knew would be against the proposed deletion. Problem?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX

 – 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article has come a long way from the "watch this space for more info about how Dominionists are plotting in large numbers to take over the world" tone that it began with. I have always contended that there are several such people but they are just not mainstream conservatives or Christians. I think that the template can be useful, too, as long as we work together constantly to keep it as NPOV as humanly possible, and will also be posting this or a similar comment in that debate. Rlquall 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

An issue in the culture wars?

There's no shortage of reputable sources that say it is.

Cornell's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy: http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

Harper's: http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html

Salon's Michelle Goldberg's book: Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (and noted in the review by publishers weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/PWdaily/CA6316005.html)

I have literally dozens of sources that say it is. I'll post them all if necessary, but I think the sources given make the case already. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It obviously fits the mould perfectly, although what matters more is that others have described it as being a culture-war issue. Guettarda 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the category because the content in the *article* at the time, did not support it. When the category was added (and re-added) there should have been an update in the body of the article, to support it. The current verison of the article, still doesn't support the category. At a minimum the term "Culture Wars" should have been mentioned somewhere in the body of the article. Relevant quotes attributed to specific people should have been included. Readers of articles do not read talk pages. So, the above cites are worthless if put only on talk page. Much time has been wasted on Dominionism-related articles, because some people seem insistant on putting in information without sources *upfront*, but instead prefer to wait till much later, have an arguement, then provide the sources elsewhere. Do the job of sourcing at the beginning, and then, it's much harder for anybody to challenge you later. I think this *could* be sourced in the article, so I won't immedidately remove the category. But, if there's no fixing of the article, I will re-remove the category. So, I suggest fixing it now, instead of arguing later. -Rob 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article has support for it, the category is acceptable. --Rob 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


"In order to encompass most religiously motivated political conservatives within the scope of their criticism, the sociologists suggest that..." Are we saying that sociologists as a group are doing this on purpose out of political antipathy, or am I misunderstanding the meaning here? Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


This is the sort of entry that makes the entire Wikipedia project look ridiculous. The "reputable sources" that FeloniousMonk mentions equate all Christian conservatives with dominionism. It is fine for them to hold such silly personal opinions but they should not be portrayed as if they are "neutral" sources. Anyone who knows anything about dominionism recognizes that groups like the Family Research Council and individuals like Marvin Olasky are not associated with the movement. To imply that they are by including them on this entry simply gives peopel the impression that the moderators are pushing a particular political agenda rather than following the spirit of the NPOV. Joe Carter 05 August 2006

I think it all comes down to the sources. Are we missing reliable sources that define dominionism? Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, citing CRESP is a bit like citing the Communist Party, which isnt' too far off, considering both are part of United for Peace and Justice. Accuracy doesn't matter, and I agree FeloniousMonk seems to care more about his personal opinions than factual accuracy. If he doesn't why doesn't he allow viewpoints that differ from his own?

--Pravknight 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

offline sources

Offline sources are of course ok. However, because they are offline, they especially need more information then merely the name of the publication and page, to aid in their access. Also, rather than me tagging everything needing a cite, how about people just doing that in first place, and saving us some time. Edit summary comments like "his views are well known" as an excuse not to cite something, seem to totally misunderstand Wikipedia policy on citation requirements. I don't care if something is well known to you. Provide your sources, or it may be removed, if questioned. --Rob 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to cite sources unless there is a dispute about the facts or an assertion of truth is being made that needs to be attributed. "Goerge Bush is the President of the USA" doesn't need a citation. Neither does "Rushdoony is a Theonomist". If there arises a dispute over the facts (such as a source claiming something different) I'll be glad to give full cites from the relevant sources. Otherwise I view the request as superfulous. » MonkeeSage « 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a few more people know about Bush then Rushdoony. I won't re-add the {{fact}} tag to that particular sentence. Anyway, could clarify something? Are you just saying uncontested facts don't need cites (like a footnote), or do you think they don't even need to be sourced at all (e.g. not even in general references). If you wish to avoid citing uncontested well known facts, and leave it to general references section, that's fine with me, that's the norm. If you feel that its unecessary to provide sources for facts, then I strongly disagree, and feel that in Wikipedia, it's epxected that everything is sourced properly. It should always be possible for any reader, even those unfamiliar with the topic, to easily verify what's read, by checking with sources provided. Anyway, maybe I misread what you meant. --Rob 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I added two full cites from Rushdoony. I can also provide more or clearer cites if needed, as I have both Bahnsen's Theonomy and his [Rushdoony's] Institutes. » MonkeeSage « 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

yuricareport

If you wish to use this as a source, that's fine. But you should not use them to state opinion as fact. Rather, attribute the statement to them (ideally the specific author), in the body of the article, as in "According to so-and-so of Yurica Report .....". We need to ensure that Wikipedia does not endorse a political position, but merely covers them. --Rob 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a Theonomist/Reconstructionist/Dominionist, so I obviously don't agree with Katherine Yurica's POV. That was just the closest source (being linked elsewhere in the article) to confirm common knowledge information which was (I believe) wrongly tagged as needing a citation. » MonkeeSage « 07:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I inserted "usually considered"; but feel free to rework. » MonkeeSage « 12:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with paragraph

I'm having some trouble with this paragraph:

Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but anti-Dominionist critics commonly point to this passage as a paradigm that influences Christian attitudes of Western domination over the Earth and everything in it.

Firstly, the Christians typically...over the Earth, clause. Is this true? Is not 'responsibility over the Earth' based on modern ideas of egological fragility? Is their any source for the claim that most Xtians interpret the verse this way?

Secondly, anti-Dominionist critics seems a bit awkward, does this means critics of Dominionists or critics of anti-Dominionists? And are there any notable examples of these critics?

Finally, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing everything from paradigm... onwards. Could the original author rephrase it? Regards, Ashmoo 05:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Christianism

Why is this statement being removed from the lead and elsewhere: "There is also a movement to rename Dominionism as Christianism in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right." The reasons given for reverting this addition is that it is POV or "Not a given" but this is merely summing up what the people pushing this term are saying (per "My Problem with Christianism" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, accessed May 9, 2006). Why is it POV to sumarize what the people using the term Christianism are saying? I'd be fine with the sentence that currently exists, i.e. "There are also a few authors who use the terms Christianism or Christian nationalism" as long as "in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right." was added to it. Otherwise the article does not detail why these people are using the term. I should add that this info was originally located at the article Christianism but a discussion there felt that that article should be a redirect here.--Alabamaboy 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I'm ok not calling it a movement (that is probably overkill) but the term is now in use and should be explained here. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. These sentences were added to the section on Christianism: "Dominionists may or may not agree with this characterization, depending on what is meant by the expressions "wield [Christianity] as a political force" and "conflate state and [church]." I don't dispute this but if people believe that saying "in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right" is POV (even when that is a referenced statement) then the disclaimer on Christianism should be removed unless a reference is provided for it. After all, the disclaimer is definately opinion, which is not allowed unless sumarizing a statement from an outside source.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We cannot assume why people are using the term. We can only cite the use of the term and cite others saying why they think the term is being used. Otherwise it is POV original research.--Cberlet 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The giant block of text with a POV summary of the views of Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomists probably belongs on the Christian Reconstructionism page of the Dominion Theology page. We can link to it there. If it goes on this page, it unbalances the entry. There is now redundant text promoting the Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomist rejection of criticisms relating to their totalitarianism on three pages. We should pick a page and move most of the discussion there. I am agnostic on which page it should go--I just object to the same lengthy POV rebuttal being on three pages.--Cberlet 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't assume why people were using the word. The referenced source I provided stated exactly what I'd put in the article. Will you support placing these sentences in the lead at the start of the Christianism section:

"There are also a few authors who are using the term Christianism in place of Dominionism. The authors state they are doing this to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right."

The reference for this is "My Problem with Christianism" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, accessed May 9, 2006. I believe those sentences address your concerns and are NPOV. Will you support this since it is not an assumption but a reference to a source (from Time magazine, no less) saying why the word is being used? Also, I don't see anything POV in providing a summary of another article on this page. This is standard Wikipedia style and is done all the time. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Need more on Catholics

The "Roots and branches" section suggests interaction and common ground with catholics. This is true, particularly on the level of vcommon financial supporters. The extent to which different protestant dominionists and catholics are willing to cooperate (or not) and why is an important topic. Arch conservatives in both traditions differ in their attitude toeward and willingess (or lack thereof) to work with each other. The relevance of the Institute on Religion and Democracy to Dominionism should be considered in this light, as it is an ecumenical group including many noted neoconservatives, including some (like Richard John Neuhaus) who have stated much (conflicted) opposition to the anti-statist ideas of Reconstructionism, though state religious neutrality is a concept generally rejected all across the religious right, and its rejection has been a crucial theme in the political mobilization of religious conservatives. 70.94.8.139 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed.

As if the term wasn't loaded enough already, this article is edited by self-confessed critics. Put up a neutrality warning. (Anonymous)

I strongly agree that this article is biased, but in the other dirrection. Everything possible is done to undermine the critics point of view while describing it. For example: "For instance, some critics go so far as to point to a phrase from Chalcedon's website." The phrase "go so far" carries the unmistakable implication that they are over reaching their bounds and going too far. A NPOV version of the sentence would simply be "For instance, some critics point to a phrase from Chalcedon's website," which would also simply be better more concise writing. The entire article is riddled with these subtle ways of painting critics as fanatics. OverZealousFan 14:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The message being responded to is very old. No neutrality warning is currently flagged on the page.--Cberlet 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

references are messed up

I don't see how footnote #8 supports the quote. I would like to know the source of the quote.

Click on the reference # after the quote. It leads to the Chalcedon web page. The entry has a mixture of references and web page cites. Numbers are thus duplicated. It is very confusing and should be fixed.--Cberlet 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links list updated

There is no longer anything at this URL so the link to it (The Dominionist) was removed: http://thedominionist.blogspot.com. -- Awinger48 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The following link was again removed because when you use the link it goes to an empty blogger page entitled "Not Found." That means there might have been an active page there but there isn't one anymore.

-- Awinger48 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Roots and Branches

The following has been added to the "Roots and Branches" section as the second and third sentences of the second paragraph: There is some doubt however that Schaeffer in fact has the dominionist views with which he is credited. See Schaeffer and the Christian Right. If there are any questions concerning this revision please see the following for the discussion with the Administrator who authorized the revision: User_talk:JoshuaZ#Schaeffer_and_Dominionism -- Awinger48 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Use a footnote or two rather than directing a reader to another wiki as using wiki to source wiki presents problems. Remember too, that the source must meet WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. •Jim62sch• 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The footnote has been added. Thank you for your advice :-) Awinger48 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, that looks fine. I hope you understand why using wiki to source wiki can create problems. External sources are more easily verifiable because they are unlikely to change. One down, only 80 billion more wiki issues to deal with.  ;) •Jim62sch• 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand, especially since I'm one of the ones changing a wiki. I don't envy your job one bit. Thank you again for your help :-) Awinger48 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Name the names

"Some influences on the Christian Right acknowledge looking to the New Testament to justify theocracy."

Who or what? WP:WTA It's not adequate to say some influences on the Christian Right. Also what faction of the Christian Right says this because it's not a homogeneous movement?

The Christian right consists of religious traditionalists ranging from Baptists, Pentacostals and Presbyterians on one end to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on the other, and their theologies differ radically. Lets avoid stereotyping here.--Pravknight 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, WTA is a guideline, not a policy (rule). Second, Sullivan's sexuality is irrelevant. Third, stop top-posting -- post your new sections at the 'bottom of the page.
On another note, "The Christian Right", as used in America, does not generally include Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. However, the definition of the Christian Right is pretty straight forward, and associated groups share a basic philosophy. The only differences are in the methods for getting their message out. Some are more likely to follow the stereotypical old christian (i.e., 200 AD) method of using a gentle word, while others use a form of theocratic pressue to foirce theit opinions on others. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some influences on the Christian Right acknowledge looking to the New Testament to justify theocracy." I would like a citation for this. I doubt if very many on the Christian right would go on record saying "I use the New Testament to justify my determination to impose theocracy on America." I would like to know who said what. I also wonder why we say they 'acknowledge' looking, instead of 'they look.' Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re "acknowledge' looking, instead of 'they look." -- these mean totally different things. As for the cites, you need but wait a bit. •Jim62sch• 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
They do mean different things. "They acknowledge looking" implies a guilty admission after close questioning. Both imply that they start with what they want to find, and then look for Bible passages to support it, probably ignoring passages that do not. Certainly that is common among both liberal and conservative Christians, and probably in all belief systems that have a holy book. It may not usefully distinguish Dominionists from Anglicans. As to the citation, there's no hurry. I look forward to seeing who said it, and exactly what he said. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Odd, but I didn't read "acknowledge" as an admission of "guilt" per se, but definitely as something that was a response to a question in an interview. Of course, now that you pointed it out, it'd be interesting to see who else read it the way you did, and if the number of people is significant it will come down to the sourcing as to whether the article retains that wording, or whether it can be changed to remove an implication of guilt. Good point, Tom. •Jim62sch• 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt many believe in Theocracy. Assertions aren't good enough. All of the members of the Christian right I know believe in a secular government that is open to religion.

If we believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 1821 ruling in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, then America was founded as an evil Dominionist state:

"We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for in effect that is the question.

Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; for this Christianity was one of the considerations of the royal charter, and the very basis of its great founder, William Penn; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men. William Penn and Lord Baltimore were the first legislators who passed laws in favour of liberty of conscience; for before that period the principle of liberty of conscience appeared in the laws of no people, the axiom of no government, the institutes of no society, and scarcely in the temper of any man. Even the reformers were as furious against contumacious errors, as they were loud in asserting the liberty of conscience. And to the wilds of America, peopled by a stock cut off by persecution from a Christian society, does Christianity owe true freedom of religious opinion and religious worship...

...No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. So far from Christianity, as the counsel contends, being part of the machinery necessary to despotism, the reverse is the fact. Christianity is part of the common law of this state. It is not proclaimed by the commanding voice of any human superior, but expressed in the calm and mild accents of customary law...

...On this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist. Under the constitution, penalties against cursing and swearing have been exacted. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury. The indictment must state the oath to be on the holy Evangelists of Almighty God."[2]

I guess then America according the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was founded as a dreaded theocracy to borrow the Leftist definition.--68.45.161.241 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's Pennsylvania. The law of the land is the US Constitution. Additionally, you quote a nearly 200 year old decision -- what has happened since then? Was Updegraph v. Commonwealth appealed to the US Supreme court? Also, as we know, courts have been known to reverse their decisions, and the PA constitution has been revisded a number of times, most recently in 1968. In other words, while your citation is nice, it's quite unclear as to whether it has any relevance to this discussion. •Jim62sch• 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because Dominionist authors frequently cite the Pa. case, and the U.S. Supreme Court cited it in The Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892). The PA Constitution still is explicitly Theistic, and its Bill of Rights hasn't changed since the 18th century. The Pennsylvania ERA and right to a clean environment were the additions. Additionally, 95 percent of the 50 states have similar wording in their constitutions.

Here's the preamble to Pennsylvania's constitution under the '68 constitution:

"We, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution." From the Pa. Bill of Rights, which is far more specific than the federal establishment clause, which BTW, didn't apply to the states when it was written. "Religious Freedom Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

Religion Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Now here's the 1776 version of the same:"II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship."

The substance hasn't changed. Again it's relevant to this discussion because the Dominionists cite this case in their literature. What reason could there be to exclude it?--Pravknight 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Generic Dominionism

Two paragraph removed:

  • Now, they feel shut out, and feel the need to re-assert their presence as religious people with a valid perspective in the democratic political process and the institutions of the culture.
  • Few, however, articulate a position that could be called theocratic.

These appear to be OR. •Jim62sch• 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They are synthetic, but they are not original. Any research at all, even the most superficial, would confirm the first statement. The second statement, however, is not neutral.
It is beyond question that although only the tiniest fraction of these groups call themselves theocratic, if any group is involved as Christians in politics, to assert the place of faith in the public sphere for the purposes of influencing legislation according to their faith, this is precisely what is being called "theocratic" or "Dominionism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Hedges

According to the wiki article on Chris Hedges he now works for the National Institute. That's why the word "Former" was added in front of "New York Times reporter." Also requesting cite for statement of fact that connects Hedges with writing about Dobson and Yugoslavia. He's written other things about Dobson but can't find anything about Yugoslavia and "parallel indoctrination systems." Thanks for your help with this :-) --Awinger48 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On the recent edit warring

The behavior of Pravknight/68.45.161.241 at this article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the establishment clause

"The Christian Origins of the Establishment Clause

In European countries where churches were subject to state control, churchmen became little more than religiously oriented bureaucrats whose Christianity was as deep as the clothes they wore on Sunday mornings.

The established churches in the American colonies were no exception, and dissatisfaction over their “spiritual dryness” led to the movement known as the Great Awakening in the mid–18th century.

Many scholars and politicians caught in the contemporary fight over church and state separation tend to emphasize the deism and anti-Christian currents of the Enlightenment. At the same time, they ignore the impact of this first Great Awakening during the 1740s and 1750s upon American religious and cultural life, which Princeton University scholar Frank Lambert attributes, in part, to the post-revolutionary attitudes in some circles about the institutional connection between the churches and the states.

Additionally, this post–Great Awakening movement was keenly aware of how the institutional dependence of churches upon the state was often detrimental to the quality of the faith expressed in those churches. Thus, they reasoned that the only way to have an authentically pure form of Christianity was to divorce ecclesiastical institutions from their dependence upon the state.

This period led many colonists—especially those in Virginia’s remote western frontier—to defy civil and ecclesiastical authority to preach the message of the “New Birth” without regard to existing institutions and laws. As a result, followers of this movement rejected preachers in the established churches whom they considered unconverted, causing a backlash among those established churches against the new evangelicals.

Coincidentally, both Jefferson and James Madison, hailing from Virginia’s mountain country, came of age amid the Great Awakening struggles between the Protestant non-conformists and the Anglican Church in Virginia. Not surprisingly, this served as the backdrop for their arguments against the formal establishment of the Anglican Church in Virginia and ultimately their case against religious establishments after the ratification of the Constitution.

This is demonstrated by Jefferson’s 1779 Notes on the State of Virginia, where the founder points out that nearly two-thirds of Virginians belonged to sects arising out of the Great Awakening rather than the established Anglican Church. These Virginians faced serious legal impediments to practicing their faith, and considering that Jefferson came from Charlottesville, in the Virginia mountains, his neighbors’ religious difficulties could not but have affected his thinking on established religion and religious freedom.

Lambert argues that the evangelicals agreed with the establishment churches about the importance of religion in society; nevertheless, “they argued that true Christianity was voluntary, not coercive, and, therefore, society was best served through free and independent churches preaching the gospel.”

Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, often cited by atheists who try to portray the founder as anti-Christian or as a believer that Christians were bigoted or ignorant because of its explicit usage of those epithets, is actually rooted in this Great Awakening tradition. Madison’s target, however, was not Christianity, but rather the corrupting influence of the state upon the church.

To this end, Madison wrote regarding the English-style institutional domination of the church:

[T]he establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws.... Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation...the Bill [the proposed legal establishment of the Anglican Church in Virginia] is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions.

Despite the claims that Memorial and Remonstrance proves Madison’s irreligiosity, it clearly shows that Madison was indeed a Christian who saw the institutional establishment of a state church as an obstacle to authentic Christianity. (It is unlikely an atheist would refer to non-Christian religions as “false.”)

Debating the Establishment Clause

While Americans came to oppose what they saw as a “tyrannical” Christianity of the governmentally controlled variety, they supported Christianity’s place in the free market of ideas. These undercurrents found a clear voice in the debates over the First Amendment in 1789.

The deliberations show that the first Congress’s intent differed sharply from that of the French revolutionaries who sought to destroy Christianity as a force in society. As 19th-century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed, “The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the infidel [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Legal scholars, such as LSU law professor John Baker, argue that the founders and most educated Americans living during the 18th century understood that a religious establishment was an institutional church under the control of the state, and to which all citizens would be expected to belong. An August 15, 1789, entry in Madison’s papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent Congress from mandating that very thing—it was not a wholesale ban on Christianity’s influence on the nation’s public morality or laws.

The entry says: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law [as had been the practice in many of the colonies], nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....”

Many on the Left make much out of the fact that Madison’s proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a “national religion”—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general “religion.” But their point ignores the historical context for removing the word “national” from the establishment clause. The rejection was rooted in the arguments between the Federalist and anti-Federalist forces, not because they wanted to prevent the government from allowing religious expression in a more general manner. During the debate, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison’s language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty). The question compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.

Legal scholars, including Baker, argue that using the term “national government” was unconscionable for both Federalist and anti-Federalist forces. Thus, removing the word “national” from the establishment clause was necessary to secure ratification by the states, many of which were wary of having their authority undercut by the federal government.

Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed language that would have said, “Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience,” which raised uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester of New York. They worried the language could be used to harm religious practice because federal courts might construe the establishment clause in a manner different from Madison’s intent. Almost 220 years later, those objections have proven prophetic.

Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which Sherman believed made it impossible for Congress to establish a national religion (since doing so was not among its stated powers).

Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions, but the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop it from the amendment.

The Senate went through several more narrowly targeted versions before reaching the contemporary language.

One version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall freedom of conscience be infringed,” while another read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one particular religious denomination in preference to others.” Ultimately, the Senate rejected the more narrowly targeted language.

The establishment clause did not nullify the religious establishments in states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, nor did it abolish elements of the common law that were connected with Christian belief. Although religious groups were institutionally separate from the state, religion continued to have an impact upon all three branches of government.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acknowledged this in the 1822 case of Updegraph v. the Commonwealth: “The constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist…. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury.”

Despite the passage of the establishment clause in 1789, Congress did not stop itself from issuing a proclamation of thanksgiving to God just two months later. Clearly, they saw no contradiction.

Secularists often point to the fact that the Senate ratified a treaty in 1797 with Tripoli, in which the eleventh article states, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

This statement, however, should be understood within the context of the founders’ repudiation of the divine right of kings, which claimed the monarch’s power came from God alone and thus the king was also the head of the church. It was also intended to assert that the United States government—unlike the Christian kings of Europe—was a civil government that didn’t seek to use force to compel the Muslim rulers of North Africa to convert to Christianity, hence the clause, “No pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Finally, the founders, according to Lambert, didn’t equate the government with the nation, which they clearly associated with the people. The founders established a civil government, based upon civil laws, some of which were influenced by Christian principles and morality."[3] --Pravknight 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An over-abundance of words will not be read. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further elaboration

Explain to me something what is wrong with further elaborating on an unsupported argument in the article: Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation." + Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation." By this, some mean that, at one time Christian participation, as Christians, was not feared in the public sphere, and was even a norm. Now, they feel shut out, and feel the need to re-assert their presence as religious people with a valid perspective in the democratic political process and the institutions of the culture. Few, however, articulate a position that could be called theocratic. - Dominionist authors such as David Barton and controversial former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and others look to 19th century court rulings for a different perspective on Christianity's role in governement.[4] They argue the U.S. Supreme Court has undermined the framers' intent for the establishment clause since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case.[5]

Dominionists such as Robertson, Barton and Moore claim the morality expressed in American laws, such as the Blue laws, passed during the early part of American history reflected Christianity's influence upon the law. Such perspectives were advanced in 19th century cases such as Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824) and Holy Trinity v. Commonwealth (1892), which Domionionist authors including Pat Robertson frequently cite in support of their arguments. [6] [7]

The Dominionist Chalcedon Foundation argues: -

"Based upon those premises, secularists would have to admit that at the time the Constitution was ratified, America was a full-blown theocracy. Sodomy laws, blasphemy laws, and even Sabbath laws were common in various states. If secularists are crying “theocracy” now, they would’ve marched in the streets of eighteenth-century America."[8]

How many more citations do you want? It's every bit as well sourced as the ones FeloniousMonk seems refers to every time his judgment is questioned.

I'm looking for an explanation of why this is POV? I refrained from using any weasel words, per WP:WEASEL, and I replaced my earlier citations with law school case citations, per Jim68sch's request.

Additionally, my other edits sought to clean up some of the verbosity that should be avoided. NO PASSIVE VOICE.WP:WTA

Also, if someone refers to themselves as "progressive" and the term itself is POV, it should be replaced with something a bit more neutral and indisputable. Hey, the Dominionists would consider themselves the real progressives, LOL. Dominionists joke among themselves about how the "progressives" have more in common with Atlla the Hun than the great social reformers of history.--Pravknight 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

New section moved from the article for discussion

I've removed this new section to talk for discussion since we've had npov issues with its author, who's been notably and dogmatically hostile to this topic. Specifically, I'm concerned about undue weight and the prominence of this view, and I'm interested in seeing cberlet's insight as to it's notability. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dogmatically hostile. Gimme a break. Why do you hate Christians? This article is hardly NPOV, and it needs balance. I will restore it. Isn't this poisoning the well by removing it. CBerlet is not a theologian, and isn't competant to discuss theological matters. I'm hostile to what I see as an effort to paint all Christians with a broad brush and impose partisanship. It's funny that I get accused of NPOV violations on this when I simply point out that Dominionism is controversial among Evangelicals. --Pravknight 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And you are? Cberlet is a widely recognized/cited expert on the topic, and his work qualifies as a reliable source per our guidelines. FeloniousMonk 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He's a political operative, period. FeloniousMonk, I'm sick of your constant harrassment. Secondly, I don't care about your stupid RfC. He's not a theologian, and neither are you. This article is nothing but a bigoted, hate-filled polemic. Widely respected by whom, Leftists. This is a highly biased article that doesn't conform to NPOV standards. The only consensus here is a consensus of one, you. I reject the RfC as nothing but harassment.--Pravknight 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Theological critique Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist theology's belief that the penalties of the Levitical law remain binding upon Christians under the New Covenant is controversial among many conservative Evangelicals. The Christian Research Institute, a noted conservative Evangelical apologetics ministry, takes the Dominionists to task for what it sees as a misunderstanding of the Bible.

"But are Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ's first and second comings."

[9] CRI argues the Great Commission found in Matthew, Chapter 28:18-20, does not provide any sort of "Dominion Mandate" as argued by Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony or other Dominionists. "There is certainly no explicit connection made in Matthew 28 between the Great Commission and the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28. Nor are the commands to disciple, baptize, and teach somehow equivalent to 'take dominion.'"[10] It also denies that Christians have a "general mandate from Christ to seek or achieve worldwide or even nationwide political dominion before His return." Likewise, Bob DeWaay, a conservative Evangelical preacher from Minneapolis, argues the Dominionists strain to make biblical passages conform with their theology. "It is remarkable how much emphasis is placed on Genesis 1:26-28 as being a mandate to rule over cultures and human institutions in a fallen world when at the time that Adam was given this mandate, no such cultures existed and the world was not fallen. The text says nothing about cultures or subjugating other people." [11]
PK, knock off the pity party crap and the unfounded assertions and the childish behaviour. It's not a party of one, by the way. Oh, and this, "Why do you hate Christians?" is a personal attack. •Jim62sch• 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jim (which is not to say that I disagree with PK), in all except his own personal attacks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus on editing text

Too much of this entry is uncited Original Research not properly cited. There is plenty of conservative evangelical and Christian Right scholarship and writing challenging the notion of dominionism from several vantage points. It belongs in this article, replacing the uncited essays that now have proliferated. I just brought in a block of text with a long section by a moderate evangelical scholar. We need more of this cited material, and less time-wasting blogging on this discussion page. It is a waste of time.--Cberlet 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is in very poor state

I just came across this article today. The article is a mess, to put it bluntly: too many quotations that need to be summarized, original research in many sections, unattributed opinions, and the use if weasel words galores such as "however". Our readers expect a concise article on the subject, written in a dispassionate tone, in which significant viewpoints are presented and attributed to published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I could live a full and rich life if I never again saw the construction, 'Smith says foo, however Jones notes bar.' Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Count me in... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Amen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Compare the raging discussion at the associated template: Template_talk:Dominionism. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There are abundant sources for this subject. Rather than engage in endless discussions about the subject, editors may find it more productive to research these sources and provide good material to create a readable and interesting article. I added some material, but do not have much time or inclination to research this further. But I will add a "Further reading" section in which I will list books and journals on the subject. Editors can then endeavor to explore these if they wish and add new material to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What about making a "Dominionism" subsection in the Christian Reconstructionism article instead? I have solid references for Christian Reconstructionism. However, I am left with the impression that Dominionism (when not describing Christian Reconstructionism) is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. --LC 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Really bad idea. Christian Reconstructionism is only one form of Dominionism. Dominionism is a term used in several of scholarly works. Just because you don't like a term used by scholars is not a valid reason to seek to delete the page. Please see the work of Sara Diamond on Dominionism, and please stop calling her work a "conspiracy theory."--Cberlet 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey. The article by Sara Diamond actually speaks of Dominionism in terms of Christian Reconstructionism too, by the way. The definition here is so sweeping that I would have to wonder if any conservative Christian who did not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, the free flow of pornography, etc, would not be tagged as a "Dominionist". Frjohnwhiteford 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

sara diamond

I cannot recall saying anywhere here that the work of Sara Diamond is a conspiracy theory. But since someone brought Diamond up, why does her only scholarly work, a 1993 UCB dissertation, fail to mention Dominionism, or Dominion Theology, or Christian Reconstructionism, or Rushdoony, or Gary North? Less than two years later she is speaking about a Dominionst cabal taking over the country. What is going on here? --LC 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" language is useful for explaining what the work on Dominionism looks like, from the opposing point of view. However, it is provocative - and since I've used the term myself, I suggest from myself that we find a better term to explain this perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That is, find a term which is not prejudicial to the observations of these writers, but is adequately descriptive of the reason that we cannot accede with their conclusions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional advocates of "Soft Dominionism"

If this is the definition: "Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Christian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence."

By this definition, three Critics listed on the Dominionism Template need to also be listed as advocates of Dominionism:

All three fit this definition perfectly.

Also, aside from their not being active in the Republican Party or Zionists, I think we should add these notable Dominionists as well:

Another problem with this definition, aside from its sweeping all pro-life Christians under this heading, is that it contradicts the Supersessionism part of the Template, which is in fact a belief held by real Christian Reconstructionists.

Frjohnwhiteford 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I really must object to the continuous misrepresentations and false statements by Frjohnwhiteford. I resent having my time wasted with disruptive trivializations and bogus arguments. The paragraph cited above is not a definition of Dominionism. Dominionism, Dominionism Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are three related but different things. The same material is posted by Frjohnwhiteford on the Dominionism Template page. This discussion is contentious and difficult enough without this type of disruptive juvenile crap.--Cberlet 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is the definition in the article given for "Generic Dominionism". If it isn't, where can we find such a definition in that section, and why is this how the generic Dominionism section begins? I don't believe it is trivial, bogus, contentious, or juvenile crap to point out that the definition of Generic Dominionism applies exactly to three of the primary critics of "Dominionsim" list on the Dominionism Template, or that it is so broad as to include any pro-life Christian who doesn't think gay marriage should be the law of the land -- because that does in fact include the Pope and Mother Theresa. Tell me why it isn't so, rather than engaging in ad hominem. Frjohnwhiteford 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that the phrase "Generic Dominionism" originated on Wikipedia...

Either this phrase originated in this Wikipedia article, or its use was extremely limited prior to being introduced to the rest of the English speaking world by this article... thus making it original research.

If you do a Google search, with the following criteria:

Generic.Dominionism -wikipedia -wiki you get only ten hits, and it is fairly obvious that most of those ten hits got their content from this article.

Even Sarah Diamond, the lone scholarly source cited by advocates of the broad bruch approach to this subject does not advocate such a broad brush in the article linked on this page, but rather quite the opposite:

"Conspiracy theorizing about the Christian Right's supposedly "secret" agenda involves highlighting the hate-mongering and bizarre ideas of a handful of Christian Right players while neglecting the broad popularity of dominion theology. There are a variety of ideological tendencies within the Christian Right. At the truly extreme end of the spectrum is a set of ideas proponents call reconstructionism, associated with only a small number of think tanks and book publishers. Many Christian Right activists have never even heard of reconstructionism, whose advocates call for the imposition of an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with capital punishment for offenses including adultery, homosexuality, and blasphemy." Dominion Theology, By Sara Diamond

So, even she seems to have more in mind the idea of the alleged influence of "dominionist" ideas, rather than a different type of "dominionism". And when you start talking about influence, unless it is acknowledged influence, it is a fairly subjective matter. To what extent are modern liberals influenced by the ideas of Joseph Stalin... and does this make them "soft" or "generic" Stalinists?

I would argue that either those who wish to keep this section of the article in tact present us with a proper definition of "generic dominionism" that does not sweep up Mother Theresa along with every other Christian, and that they cite sources for this definition that actually use the term the way they use it in this article, or that this section be either deleted, or recaste in terms of the alleged "influence" of "dominionist" ideas. Frjohnwhiteford 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Soft Dominionism turns up even fewer non-wiki hits:

soft.Dominionism -wikipedia -wiki, pulls up a total of 6 hits hits on Google. And interestingly, a name comes up here that is involved in the creation of this article Chip Berlet (c.f. User:Cberlet).

If we adjust our search by removing his name, we are now down to 3 hits:

soft.Dominionism -wikipedia -wiki -Berlet

Two of those hits are comments made to a blog, which leaves us with the Yurica Report.

Also, making the same adjustment for "Generic Dominionism, knocks out two of the 10 hits mentioned above:

generic.Dominionism -wikipedia -wiki -Berlet

I think it is safe to say that neither soft nor generic dominionism are widely accepted terms outside of Wiki-World, or those who participate in it. And that the insertion of this concept into this artcle constitutes original research and the pushing of a new thesis, rather than the mere recounting of information that is already out there waiting for wikipedians to recount it. Frjohnwhiteford 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are published scholalry sources that do not turn up on Internet searches. This whole issue is discussed at length on this talk page above. Here is a snippet:
The terms Dominionism and Dominion Theology come out of evangelicalism, not critics of the Christian Right. The idea that there was a broader "dominionist impulse" goes back to at least 1992 and the book by Bruce Barron, Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology, published by the Christian publishing house, Zondervan. Even earlier, Sara Diamond had raised the issue in her book Spiritual Warfare. Here is what Barron wrote:
  • "As we will see, [Pat] Robertson's explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors what we will call a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism."
Barron is a relatively conservative Christian evangelical. His book is the best source on this subject.
The cite by Barron resides on this page for anyone to see if they simply scroll up. Am I too assume that Frjohnwhiteford has not bothered to read this page? Or should I assume that Frjohnwhiteford just consciously or unconsciously misrepresents reality? Why is it not appropriate to point out that this is further evidence of a disruptive mode rather than serious constructive collaborative editing?--Cberlet 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not obvious who is talking above, since the comments are not signed. Either you did not read what I wrote, or you are obfuscating my point. I was not suggesting that the term "Dominionism" be trashed here... though if it were up to me, I would because I think the term does not add anything to the more precise terms that reference the real beliefs that Dominionism refers to. Christian Reconstructionism is not Kingdom Now theology, is not the Mainstream Conservative Evangelical approach to politics.
My objection is to the labels "Generic Dominionism" and "Soft Dominionism". We don't have a definition that makes any sense, nor is there any evidence that anyone who did not get those terms from this Wikipedia article has ever used them. So what I am asking for is that 1) We be provided with a proper definition of these terms, since they are being tossed around here, and that 2) we be given the sources that support the use of that definition. To continue to misrepresent my points here, while avoiding providing any answers to my questions is evidence of a disruptive mode rather than serious constructive collaborative editing. Frjohnwhiteford 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony

Some liberal or left critics of Christianity and religion in general often suggest that Dominionism and Reconstructionism are the same thing. No serious scholar makes this mistake. There is far too much about Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony on this page. That's why I moved it to the Christian Reconstructionism page and deleted it here. The discussion by Martin is sufficient. If you want to defend posting copious material about Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony on this page, please find a scholarly cite to back this up. --Cberlet 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet that too many are attempting to repair the framework in which this subject is regarded by these scholars, instead of describing the topic according to that framework. This prevents editors from talking about the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Political participation is not Dominionism

Note to FeloniousMonk and other critics of the Christian Right. Political participation by conservative evangelicals is not Dominionism. Please do not restore the factually false section wording where bad writing suggests that political participation is Dominionism. --Cberlet 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your pointing this out. Now, what I would like you to explain is how Dr. James Dobson can possibly be fairly characterized as a Dominionist, given what you say here. He is not advocating a theocratic form of government. He is merely advocating that Christians have their fair say in our democratic form of government, which is of course his right to do so.
On big point that those who have not studied Protestantism in any detail are generally unaware of is that one of the major fault lines within Protestantism is between Free-Church traditions, and the State Church Traditions. Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism are all State Church traditions (denominations that in one country or another were the official state religion). Baptists, Pentecostals, and Holiness Movement denominations are all part of the Free-Church tradition. It is these groups that are the primary reason why the United States never had an official state religion. They may or may not favor the government sanctioning public expressions of religion, but they are deeply distrustful of a State Religion. Dobson, comes from the Free Church tradition, and as such has never advocated any theocratic ideas, and I challenge anyone to present evidence to the contrary. And I say this as someone who not a Protestant at all, but who just thinks truth, accuracy, and fairness are worth defending, even when it comes to peopel I do not always agree with.Frjohnwhiteford 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Gee, let me see, given that one of the flashplayer screens on Focus in the Family's website ([12]) is "Why is a Christian Worldview Important?", which links to this, I can't see how anyone might claim Dobson is a Dominionist. •Jim62sch• 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can fill us in on why discussing the need for having a Christian Worldview makes one a Dominionist. Everyone has a worldview. If you are a Christian, you would normally want to have a Christian one rather than say a materialist atheistic worldview, or a pagan worldview, or an Islamic worldview. You would also normally want your children to have a Christian worldview as well. This does not mean you wish to impose your worldview on unwilling people by force or coercion. Frjohnwhiteford 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
One does it by building what appears to be a mandate: PoliSci 51. •Jim62sch• 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Where in either of the links you referenced do you get the idea that anyone is advocating the imposition of a Christian Worldview on anyone by force? Frjohnwhiteford 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The ability to read critically without bias is a beautiful thing. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The ability to support ones assertions with evidence and reason is also a beautiful thing. You are asserted that there is something about those pages which implies "Dominionism", I have asked you to support it by citing specifics, and you engage in further insults rather than a reasoned discussion. Frjohnwhiteford 00:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

definitions / pov lead

How can we as Wikipedia editors determine why we should take the notions of Diamond et al serious, or the notions of Kurtz et al? The current rewrite of the lead suggests the former, and makes us susceptible to the political activism of these people. I don't think we can choose. That's why this article seems to be doomed. I think criticism can be added to the Christian Reconstructionism article or Christian Theology. Ideas might have consequences, but Dominionism does not. --LC 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to make it more NPOV. Serious scholars use the term Dominionism. It is against basic Wiki policies to suggest that a term published in reputable scholarship and widely used does not merit an entry simply becasue it is contentious.--Cberlet 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Repubable scholarship means peer review and acceptance of these views within an academic community. There is not of that here. Until that changes, we are talking about political activism here. --LC 13:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"reputable" scholarship includes peer review as the superior form, but publishing in academic journals and books also counts as reputable scholarship here on Wikipedia. Diamond has a Ph.D. in sociology. The Ansell book is an edited scholalry collection by a woman with a Ph.D. Both Diamond and Ansell wrote their dissertations on the rise of the New Right. The book by Barron was published by a conservative Christian publishing house. We have been over this before. Please read the entire discussion page before making statements that have already been discussed in detail.--Cberlet 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Diamond's Ph.D. dissertation did not discuss Dominionism once. What academic journals are you talking about? Neither Academic Search Premier, ProQuest/UMI and Google Scholar show any scholarship on the topic. You are claiming false authority. --LC 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Her dissertation was turned into a book titled "Roads to Dominion." She repeatedly used the term after that.--Cberlet 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The material may not be freely available on the web, but dominionism does show up in a Lexis/Nexis search (which people can often do at the local library or college). The term exists in use among scholars and journalists and has been the subject of discussion, though it does not have the currency of some other sociological terms. From a 1996 Tampa Tribune, "Essentially," Diamond writes, "dominionism revolved around the idea that Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns." The term is also misunderstood, misused, and abused, as by a president of the American Atheists who said in 1997, "Promise Keepers involve a concept called dominionism, which means turning our country into a theocracy." (Right, and organized labor is a front for Godless Communism.) Chris Hedges has written about his understanding of dominioinism, and others have written that Hedges is mistaken. Taken all together, I think there is enough in print from enough independent and reliable sources to support an article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this framing of the issue by Tom Harrison.--Cberlet 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the fourteen (!) hits for Dominionism in major papers Lexis Nexis point to either Michelle Goldberg, Chris Hedges or Sarah Diamond, mostly to dicuss their (new) books. Interesting is that I only get three (!) hits for the term in the period before 2005. If you say it warrants an article, it still does not answer the question if the notions of Diamond at all should be taken more serious than the notions of Kurtz et al, if they should be viewed in terms of political activism or in terms of serious scholarship. A review of Diamond's work in the American Political Science Review said that Diamond's 1995 Roads to Dominion book lacks "theoretical and historical substance" and that her "analysis is colored by her political bias." (APSR, 1997, 91:1) Of course this is just one review in the most prestigious political science journal of the world, but it can attest to the fact that we should not see this article in any scholarly light. --LC 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism is also discussed in these books and journals:

  • Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics
  • God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin, 2005
  • Davis, Derek H. & Hankins, Barry New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America, Baylor University Press, 2003
  • Mccarraher, Eugene , Empire Falls', Commonweal. Volume: 133. Issue: 9. May 5, 2006
  • Steinfels, Peter, Be Not Afraid The American Prospect. Volume: 17. Issue: 9, September 2006

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mccarraher's review of Kevin Philips's American Theocracy equates Christian Reconstructionism with Dominionism. As does Steinfels, btw. --LC 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some more to the Further Reading section:
  • Quarles, Chester L., Christian Identity: The Aryan American Bloodline Religion, (2004) McFarland & Company, ISBN 0-786-41892-3
  • Diamond, Sara, Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, (1995) Guilford Press, ISBN 0-898-62864-4
  • Clarkson, Frederick, Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence, The Public Eye 8, Nos. 1—2 (March, June 1994).
Christian Reconstructionism is just one form of Dominionism according to the original group of those who developed the term in the 1990s (Barron, Diamond, Clarkson, Berlet, Lyons). That the term has been abused and dubiously expanded through misdefinition, hysteria, and anti-religious bias is the point that Tom Harrison was making above. This entry can help make this clear. Even Diamond eventually complained about the term being abused.--Cberlet 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, we may be getting somewhere. One point I would make though is that the term "Dominionism" may warrant an article of its own. I question whether it deserves a section on the Bio-pages of the people who are tagged with this label, given the sparse general use of it. I would also argue that the Dominionism template would be far more constructive if it were re-labeled "The Christian-Right" or something along those lines.
But "Dominionism" is not properly assigned to everyone in the Christian Right. That is a misuse of the original use of the term. That's the problem we are wrestling with here.--Cberlet 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so how about telling us the basis for the distinction? Is Hal Lindsey a Dominionist? If not, why is he not a Dominionist but James Dobson is? Frjohnwhiteford 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Does Diamond use the terms "generic dominionism" or "soft dominionism", and if so, what is the definition of those terms that she provides? Frjohnwhiteford 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Some wording to that effect could be added. If you have quote from Diamond, that could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Diamond made a distinction between Dominion Theology and Dominionism in general. The terms soft and hard were then used to explain that distinction to people who were getting the terms confused. --Cberlet 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So are you conceding that these terms are newly coined terms in this article, and if so, why does this not constitute original research? Frjohnwhiteford 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the type of combative misrepresentation that I am asking every editor here to back away from. No it is not original research. No the use of the terms did not originate on this page.
Clarkson, Frederick. 2005. "The Rise of Dominionism: Remaking America as a Christian Nation." The Public Eye magazine, Vol. 19, No. 3, (Winter) [13]:
  • As readers of The Public Eye know, dominionism—in its "softest" form the belief that "America is a Christian Nation," and that Christians need to re-assert control over political and cultural institutions—has been on the rise for a long time. Since The Public Eye first began writing about dominionism ten years ago, the movement, broadly defined, has gained considerable power. Recently however, the term has become fashionable with some lumping every form of evangelical Christianity and every faction in the Bush White House into one big, single-minded imperial dominionist plot. Dominionism is narrower and more profound than that. It is the driving ideology of the Christian Right.
  • It comes in "hard" and "soft" varieties, with the "hard" or theocratic dominionists "a religious trend that arose in the 1970s as a series of small Christian movements that seek to establish a theocratic form of government," according Political Research Associates Senior Analyst Chip Berlet. The seminal form of Hard Dominionism is Christian Reconstructionism, which seeks to replace secular governance, and subsequently the U.S. Constitution, with a political and judicial system based on Old Testament Law, or Mosaic Law (see box). Not all dominionists embrace this view, though most dominionists look back to the early years of the American colonies to argue that before the Constitution, "the United States was originally envisioned as a society based on Biblical law."2
  • Berlet's distinction between hard and soft dominionists is clear and broad enough to describe the two main wings of the movement. But these viewpoints, like the terms "theocrat" and "theocracy," are openly embraced by few. They are terms used by outside observers to understand a complex yet vitally important trend.
Please try to do more research and engage in less bombast.--Cberlet 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am asking you a question not making any representations at all here, but it is your "bombastic" answers that are in fact combative. I did my research, and I referenced this very article above. However, the problem with this article is that you are the source for the definition. Since you are also one of the contributers for this article, that seems rather incestous to me. Also, if the belief that America is a Christian Nation, and that Christians should use the democratic process to influence the nations institutions, then this covers just about every Christian conservative. This in fact does include three of the Critics of Dominionism listed on the Template. Now if you you mean that these Dominionists are plotting the violent overthrow of our government, then that is another story -- but I don't believe Dobson has ever been accused of that.Frjohnwhiteford 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting what I am clearly writing here. It is tiresome and unconstructive.--Cberlet 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am asking you to explain what you are saying because it is not clear. What do you think Evangelicals mean when they say that America is a Christian nation? Do you think that this means if you're not a Christian you can convert, or get the hell out of the country? Typically, they just mean that America was founded on Christian or Judeo-Christian principles, and that it has historically been a nation whose population has been overwhelmingly Christian. It is such Christians, however, who also made America a country that tolerates non-Christians. Also, you continue to not address my point that three of the critics of Dominionism fit the broad definition of "Soft" Dominionists that you have provided us with. Therefore, they should be either listed as both critics and advocates of the same thing, or else the definition requires more precision. Frjohnwhiteford 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

<--------More

Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.

Chapter 12, "Dominion Theology and Christian Nationalism,"

  • "During the 1980s and 1990s, as the Christian Right became a major political force, a tension developed within the movement between hard-line ideological commitment and the calculated pursuit of power. On the hard-line side was a tendency to reject all forms of secularism and to demand theocratic control over all areas of society. On the pragmatic side was an impulse to cut a deal with the existing power structure-to accept the established political framework in exchange for certain core demands and a role as power broker. These two poles of thought did not define two distinct factions but, rather, interacted in various ways to produce a range of viewpoints and strategic approaches."
  • "Two Christian Right subcultures, in particular, pressured the movement as a whole to reject compromises seen as betraying Christian principles. These subcultures were Protestant Christian Reconstructionism and apocalyptic Catholic traditionalism. They took the lead in shaping dominion­ism-the theocratic idea that Christian men are called upon by God to exercise dominion over sinful secular society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. Dominionism pervaded the Christian Right, either in “hard” form, demanding the literal reimposition of biblical law, or as “soft dominionism,” advocating more limited systems of Christian control. A broad dominionist movement spread from independent Protestant evangelical churches and traditionalist Catholic circles to influence theological debates in mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism."
  • "Dominion theology contributed to the growth of hard-line splinter groups and small cells that promoted violent activism. The most militant of the ardent dominionists were behind the increased violence in the anti­abortion movement, the nastiest of the attacks on gays and lesbians, and a second wave of battles over alleged secular humanist influence in the public schools. At the same time, soft dominionism influenced electorally oriented mass organizations such as the Christian Coalition" (Berlet & Lyons, pp. 247-248).

Used by permission of the author. See, also section subtitled: "The Spread of Soft Dominionism," and the related following subsections, (Berlet & Lyons, pp. 252-257). --Cberlet 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are the source here. Do you have any sources that use these terms that are not yourself or a relative of yours? Frjohnwhiteford 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your courtesy and generosity of spirit are truly amazing. An astonishing experience working with you. You bring exceptional gifts to Wikipedia. I salute you. I am, oddly, reminded of Isaiah 10, 1-3 (I prefer the NAB translation).--Cberlet 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Chip, perhaps you are unaccustomed to having your assertions challenged, but typically that is how a reasoned discussion works. You make a claim or assertion, support it as best you can with reason and evidence, and then other people get to challenge your claim, the evidence you have presented, and the logic of your argumentation. If you would try answering my arguments with reason and evidence, rather than ad hominem, we might actually be able to come to some agreement on how best to edit this article. In my opinion, this section (Generic Dominionism) is the weakest, most problematic, and most poorly reasoned or sourced section of the article. I am asking you to provide the definition. You have, finally provided us with something of a definition of the term. I have asked you some questions about what you mean. I have also asked you to provide some evidence that you are not the one who coined the term. I don't know whether you did or not. I thought perhaps Sara Diamond did, but from what you have stated, it sounds like it is you. If it is not, please fill us in on who came up with the term, and who has used it aside from yourself and those who are quoting you. And I have no idea of what your point is in citing Isaiah 10:1-3, but that is another subject. And, by the way, I apologize for offending you, but asking pointed questions is the only way I know to get to the bottom of any matter upon which reasonable people disagree. Frjohnwhiteford 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Gee, thanks! Let me test your advice. So, Frjohnwhiteford, do you support militant theocratic fascism, or is it that you think that the entire nation must convert to Carlist Catholicism or be roasted on a spit in the sulphurous burning lake of hell? Asking pointed questions is the only way I know to get to the bottom of any matter upon which reasonable people disagree. Do I have it right? Because that is what you have been doing to me, so I think I am learning from you. I apologize if I misunderstood you. Perhaps no one has ever pointed out to you how discourteous, officious, and combative you appear to be to an untrained and incompetent mind like mine. Thanks for the help!--Cberlet 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of courtesy, if you could manage a reply that was not ad hominem and actually addressed my questions, the level of courtesy would improve tremendously. Your questions are of course completely off topic, while mine were trying to get to the heart of one of the key elements in this article. I'm asking you to defend your use of the terms "soft Dominionism" and "generic Dominionism", but you keep avoiding answering questions which request you to explain your understanding of those terms, or to support your use of them with independent sources. I don't believe it is an unreasonable request to ask you to provide a source that is not a book or article you yourself have written, or which quotes you yourself as its source for this definition. I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask you to explain why Hal Lindsey would not be a Dominionist, given your definition of it, and how he could both qualify as a critic of something that he was also an advocate of. I have to conclude that your refusal to address these questions is due to the weakness of your position... but feel free to prove me wrong here, by responding with reason and evidence rather than ad hominem. Frjohnwhiteford 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We have been admonished for drifting into personal attacks. I plan to stop. It would be nice if you did too. In case it is not clear, I see the above as containing offensive personal jibes at me, my ability to think clearly, and my work. Perhaps this is your regular style. If so, please step back and imagine how I might read your posts as arrogant and patronizing. I apologize for my snide comments in response. I will try to adapt to your style, but please consider adapting your style as well.--Cberlet 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt your intelligence, and I am sure that there are many things about this topic you know that I do not. When I ask you the questions I have, I have no way of knowing before hand whether your have a great answer or not... I am just asking what I consider to be probing questions to try to get to some of that information you may know that I do not know. I apologize as well, and will try to word my questions more carefully. Frjohnwhiteford 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For an extended discussion of these issues, see: "The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy," by Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates. [14] --Cberlet 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice piece. Shameless hawking though.  ;) Ah, so what, I'nm glad you brought that to everyone's attention. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I do try...  :-) --Cberlet 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the limited and varying use of the term, and the sources who say there is no such thing properly speaking, and the active disagreement here, I think the "used by scholars, journalists, and others to describe what they see as a trend..." is better for now. As we work it out and people have time to get current on the references, there will probably be tweaking, but for now we should try to be as generous to each side of the debate as we can be. Tom Harrison Talk 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Passing by to see what's happening here, I'm having trouble seeing what Frjohnwhiteford is saying that's provoking such hard words. He seems to be trying very diligently, to patiently understand. Perhaps he would be helped if he does not address the subject in terms of whether it's telling the whole truth; but rather, he might assist in addressing what he perceives to be misunderstandings - and for the sake of the article, suspending judgment regarding truth, try to account for why these scholars see things as they do (rather than question at all, whether they are correct). I know from working on this article in the past, the approach I'm suggesting helped very much, to make progress together. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, please overlook the offense of my meddling in this quarrel. If I've misunderstood the cause of your alarm, it's my fault and not yours. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the WP: cater to the whims of those who whine about the unfairness of life policy. Could be because it doesn't exist. The intro is quite fine without the nonsensical disclaimer. •Jim62sch• 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to here. Life may not always be fair, but that doesn't mean that being unfair yourself is a good or justifiable thing. Most people would consider it a bad thing. Frjohnwhiteford 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We might as well face it that, "fairness" is not something we're able to achieve without the sacrifice of truth as we see it. But if we don't require that of the other, then we are able to achieve at least a pretense of "fairness". So, hoping I'm not being a turd to point it out, we all need to approach the issue of truth as though it doesn't matter in the controversy, just for the sake of pretending neutrality, for the sake of the article. This is what the rules of Wikipedia require of us; and it is interesting how following these rules (even though they seem to threaten truth in the real world) the procedure quickens our steps toward better understanding of what the article should look like. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to step out of this fight now. I've already made an ass of myself, by interfering. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "good-bad thing". How precisely is supporting and accurate, non-weasel-worded sentence "bad"? Facts are facts, just report them as facts without waffling or delving into tergivergisational PC-speak. There are any number of descriptions I find troublesome or negative, but I'll be damned if I'm going to whitewash them just so my wounded psyche can be assuaged. @@ •Jim62sch• 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just clarify who it is that has disclosed the facts. Attribute clearly, and without implying any prejudice, that "according to ... such and such is the verifiable fact". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slowly does it

The article has had a through brush-up. Let's let it settle for a while. I know I need to read through several of the references. No doubt there will be improvements to make, but there's no hurry. We are talking about religion and politics, and it's natural for tempers to fray. I know I do better work when I take the time to read and think before writing. That applies to the talk page as much as the article. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article keeps introducing Rushdoony and Schaeffer over and over again as if it's the first time they've been mentioned. It needs to be rewritten into a cohesive whole. Corvus cornix 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Regarding some of the comments above, please remember: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good advice, ≈ jossi ≈. In addition we've learned that, if you feel attacked it's helpful to try to figure out what provoked it, and if it's a misunderstanding and not mere malice (assume good faith), then you can usually demonstrate that you're on the same page by making a conciliatory edit in the article. It's very difficult to prove that you understand, by arguing - especially in a controversial article. The thesis of this article is that, there are scholars who fear that free democracy has no share in the kingdom of God. Forgive my presumption, if I'm off the mark, but the question of whether this is true or not seems to be the cause of anger. But, it would be wise, if that's the issue, to avoid the provocative question and focus instead on clearing up misunderstandings. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Generic/Soft Dominionism

Short of some further illumination from Chip on what he means by the term and what sources he has to support the use of the term, I suggest that this section of the article be amended along the following lines:

Chip Berlet defines "Soft" or "Generic" Dominion as "the belief that "America is a Christian Nation," and that Christians need to re-assert control over political and cultural institutions..." (Ref) This definition is however so broad that it would encompass the views of Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, and Dave Hunt... all of whom have been highly critical of Dominion Theology. Berlet bases his distinction on Sara Diamond, who distinguishes between those who advocate Dominion Theology, and those she alleges are influenced in some way by it. However a review of Diamond's work in the American Political Science Review (one review in the most prestigious political science journal of the world) said that Diamond's 1995 Roads to Dominion book lacks "theoretical and historical substance" and that her "analysis is colored by her political bias." (APSR, 1997, 91:1)

Stanly Kurtz criticizes applying the term "Dominionist" to those allegedly influenced by those who openly advocate Dominion Theology:

"All you have to do is quote a fringe Dominionist desperate to prove that his radical ideas are catching on. Dominionists have a long-term political strategy to establish a full-blown American theocracy based on Old Testament law. And look! Some other Christians want to participate in the political process, too. They even believe in developing a long-term political strategy! Ah ha! That must mean that, even though they are “unaware of the original source of their ideas,” conservative Christians are in fact under the influence of authentic Dominionists. Voila. By quoting a pathetic Dominionist extremist’s desperate efforts to prove his own influence, clever liberals can now argue that the ultimate goal of all conservative Christians is the re-institution of slavery, and execution for blasphemers and witches." Stanley Kurtz (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved on 2007-03-27.

Or, we could just delete this whole section and focus on real Dominionist ideas... Frjohnwhiteford 03:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Berlet's and Lyons' work is a legitimate source. Here [15] Berlet distinguishes hard and soft dominionism. Briefly, hard dominionists want a theocracy. Soft dominionists want to elect socially conservative Christians and implement a range of policies through the political process. I personally thought his following distinction among Christian Conservatives, Nationalists, and Theocrats better expressed the range of opinion. It is possible we might explore in more depth how different writers have set the boundaries of dominionism, who they include where, and why. Anyway, we cite the source, and present notable contrary opinion. Evaluating the aptness of the terminology is a job for other researchers and journalists. We also need to be careful to avoid constructions like, "Berlet and Lyons claim ABC, however Kurtz points out XYZ." Things like this are tendentious, unconsciously favoring the source 'pointing out' over the source 'claiming.' Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that Berlet's book can be cited as a source, but if Berlet's books and articles are the only real source for this distinction, saying "Scholars and journalists say..." is not entirely accurate. Some way of noting the scope of who is actually using the definition in this way needs to be noted. Perhaps "certain political activists and authors have said..." Now if there are other writers that can be cited that use the term in the same way, then this would need to be reconsidered accordingly.Frjohnwhiteford 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholars, journalists, and others

The intro says that dominionism is "a term used by scholars, journalists, and others". To begin with, {scholars, journalists and [people who are neither scholars nor journalists]} conceivably includes everyone, so the statement isn't meaningful. In addition, the wording suggests that the term is primarily used by "scholars and journalists", when a quick venture into google-land suggests that it's used most by "others" (or by people who do not identify themselves as scholars or journalists). It's classic "weasel words". In addition, there are no supporting citations (although, of course, the fact that the terms potentially include everyone makes citation problematic...). 72.198.121.115 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed disclaimer is utter nonsense and has no value. In fact, I fail to see how a disclaimer is needed. State the facts and leave the equivocating to the Dominionists themselves. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But you are simply begging the question of who is a Dominionist in the first place. And if every conservative Christian is a Dominionist, that makes the term misleading. It would be like speaking of hard and soft Stalinism, talking about the millions of people killed by hard Marxists, then talking about soft Marxists as those who advocate policies influenced by the Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and then listing Hilary Clinton on a Marxist template. That would not be fair, and objecting to it would not make one a whiner either. Frjohnwhiteford 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton? Have you ever bothered to study PoliSci? But you digress.
No one said that all Conservative Christians are Dominionists. You might imagine that they have, but, sorry.
Oh, to return to your digression: Stalinism ≠ Marxism; Marxism ≠ Stalinism. •Jim62sch• 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your first point was. If you are drawing attention to the fact that I spelled "Hillary" as "Hilary", both are alternative spellings of the same name, and the Greek root Hilaros as in "Φως Ιλαρόν" is something that an Orthodox Christian often runs across in the services and names one encounters in the lives of the saints (such as "Hilary", and "Hilarion"), so pardon me... these discussions are not so polished, and like most participants, my editing is quick... some times too quick.
As for how broad the Dominionist brush has been painted, if you define a Dominionist as someone who would agree with the statement that American is a Christian nation, that does cover the vast majority of conservative Christians in America. By that, they do not mean that it is an exclusively Christian nation... just that it is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and has historically been an overwhelmingly Christian nation. [Personally, I am more inclined to say that America was a Christian nation... and more precisely, that it was founded on Protestant Christian principles, with all the good and bad that come with that. Unfortunately, America is becoming something else... and even more unfortunately, I don't believe it will end up as a secular but tolerant country, but as something that few of us will be happy about in the end.]
And yes, having family members who have lived under Communism, and having known many more of it's victims, I am aware of the distinction between Stalinism and Marxism. All Stalinists are Marxists, but the reverse is not true. But again, what you have highlighted is an editing error. I originally was going to make an analogy based on Stalinism, and then decided to switch to Marxism, and missed the one reference that remained. Now, would you like to address the point that I was making? It would not be hard to find articles and books that speak of Hillary as a Marxist, and so one could create such a template with the same level of support as the Dominionism Template. But the question is, would it be fair to do so, or would it just be fun to do so, for those who don't like Hillary? And should this Wiki be a forum for people who don't like other people to unfairly smear them with labels that they have never accepted, and which associate them with groups and ideas that they have never advocated or embraced? Frjohnwhiteford 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The point was that Hillary Clinton is irrelevant to the discussion. The other points stand on their own.
BTW, I did not say Stalinists were not Marxists, reread what I wrote. There is a subtle difference -- perhaps too subtle?
Nota bene: I shall be quite happy, ecstatic even, should America avoid becoming the Christian Country it never was. •Jim62sch• 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the distinctions between communists, however, when Stalinists kill millions of people, and Maoists kill millions of people, and they all do so based on Marxist philosophy it does start to run together a bit... at least to those looking down the gun barrel. Frjohnwhiteford 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Many have died at the hands of zealous Christians, Muslims, etc., as well. Let the Marxist bit go -- it is utterly irrelevant. •Jim62sch• 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Many more people have been killed by Communists in the past 100 years than Christians and Muslims have managed to kill by their total combined efforts in the previous 2000 years. The Communist Chinese are credited with about 100 Million alone. But my point was not to focus on Communism, but to point out how easy it would be to unfairly smear someone like Hilary Clinton with such a label, and to document such smears by citing partisan sources to do so. I am not suggesting this would be a good thing. I am saying it would be a bad thing, and suggesting that it would be similar to what is being done with the Dominionist tag on the Dominionism Template, and in this article... at least as in the form it was in previously. Frjohnwhiteford 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about smearing -- but smearing is not the aim here. You might perceive it to be such, but in effect you are going in the other direction by offering apologetics, and one particular editor is attempting to shift the onus onto those who use the term.
The Christians and Muslims in their crusades and jihads simply lacked the tools of mass destruction. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We could debate what might have happened had Christians and Muslims had the tools that we had in the 20th century, but the undeniable fact is that when the 20th century came, it was the "enlightened" atheists and neo-pagan eugenicists who for the most part used those tools to engage in mass murder. To find out why that is, I would recommend reading Dostoyevksy's "The Possessed", which prophetically quotes a militant atheist as saying that 100 million heads would have to roll to establish an Atheist worker's paradise. As it turns out, he underestimated the blood bath, and of course all that resulted was a worker's hell. The reason being, as Dostoyevsky also puts it, is that "If there is no God, then all things are lawful."Frjohnwhiteford 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Oh, 'Ιλαρόs would have sufficed; Joyful or Glorious Light added nothing. •Jim62sch• 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, do you know what "Φως Ιλαρόν" refers to? It is a hymn sung at every Vespers, and so one that Orthodox Christians often encounter, which is why I mentioned it. Now do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? Would you like to engage some of the points that have been made, or answer some of the questions that have been asked? Frjohnwhiteford 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what it is, thank you, but as a linguist I bristle at etymologies that are given incorrectly, or used to get a specific unrelated point into the article.
As for the remainder of your comment: discuss the issue rationally leaving the religious fervor and preaching out of it. If you're refering to questions you asked of me, I've answered them. •Jim62sch• 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not give the etymology for "Hilary" I spoke of the Greek root Hilaros, which is obviously related to the Latin word "hilaris" which has the same meaning. Whether one is a loan word from the other language, or whether they have a common indo-european root, I don't know off hand, but that is beside the point. You have not addressed the questions I have asked. Try answering the question of why Dobson is a Dominionist and Hal Lindsey isn't, or citing evidence that Dobson has advocated a theocracy. Frjohnwhiteford 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me urge again that you stop with the personal attacks. This is not optional.
As for imagining that "all" (or a lot) of Christians are dominionists, some less reputable critics do paint with a rather broad brush. Take, for instance, this essay that was offered as a source on Template_talk:Dominionism: http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm. I don't think that it is representative of all critics of dominionism or that we could include it as a reliable source, but it has been proffered and defended as accurate enough by some. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Flex, to whom is your warning directed? •Jim62sch• 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So how are to separate political activism with serious scholarship. I mean, with book titles like American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (undoubtly the publisher wanted a sexy title), who needs arguments? I for one am not willing to accept that this topic of Dominionism has ever gone beyond political activism. --LC 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
LC, although it would be useful in the real world to distinguish pamphleteering from scholarship, it is not our job, here. The rules prohibit it. Here, for the sake of the article, political activism masquerading as scholarship is indistinguishable from scholarship (indistinguishable in terms of the collaborative procedure, rather than in terms of reality). You don't need to agree that it is in fact credible scholarship - in fact, it seems to me that you must not agree - but you must cooperate; and to do that, you must stop saying that it is not credible scholarship. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you say I have to cooperate, that means that I have to give more credence to the views of Diamond et al than those of Kurtz. That's not neutrality, that is taking sides. Political activism here is distinguishable from scholarship, because there is no scholarship at all (if there were, you should be able to find scholarly references on Dominionism in sociological, political or religious academic journals). --LC 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I am saying that, with regard to the process itself, you must give more credence to Diamond than to Kurtz, when describing the views of Diamond. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean, of course, that when describing the views of Kurtz about Diamond, you should detract from his views in any way, other than to point out that they are Kurtz's views (which to Diamond, will be enough of a disclaimer to satisfy). That sentence requires some deliberately slow and patient reading, to get its point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Discernment Ministries source, I'm not sure why one would read it as "paint[ing] with a rather broad brush" - Discernment Ministries appears to be a rather conservative Christian group, and if you poke around the site a little bit you will see that the author is a homeschooling and "right to life" activist...not exactly someone with who hates the Christian Right. 72.198.121.115 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, my NPA warning was in particular response to your derisive question, "Have you ever bothered to study PoliSci?" To quote the policy (n.b., not guideline), "Comment on content, not on the contributor." However, the admonishment applies equally to all participants in the discussion, including me.
72.198.121.115, please consider creating an account. (If nothing else, it gives you more credibility with your fellow Wikipedians because you've taken the time to sign up.) As for Discernment Ministries, I can't speak about them as an organization, but the piece I mentioned involves everyone from Promise Keepers to great swaths of missionaries including Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ to Rick Warren. It identifies the kingdom of God (a repeated phrase throughout the gospels) as wholly spiritual and terms anything else that is claimed to "advance the kingdom" -- such as "physical" activities (e.g., fighting poverty and AIDS) or "compulsory" disciple-making, which is part of the Great Commission but sometimes debated under Lordship salvation -- as a manifestation of Dominionism. This is clearly out of step with several views given in the article on the kingdom of God, which see a physical component to the kingdom but don't seek political dominion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You inferred derision, possibly correctly, possibly not. Nonetheless my comments were ad rem not ad hominem. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments were a way of avoiding addressing the point that was being made, and in fact made no point at all that added anything to the topic at hand, and it was clearly ad hominem. Frjohnwhiteford 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? You can infer my intent, too? I think not.
Now then, you made a point incorrectly and dragged an utterly irrelevant example into the discussion. I do not respond to invalid points -- and while you did correct it later, it seems to be irrelevant to the article. Generally speaking, terms such a Stalinist, Marxist, Fascist, Maoist etc., are dragged into conversations by people seeking to evoke specific (and generally erroneous) images that are unrelated to the issue at hand. And, if it's any consolation, I think the fools who refer to Dominionists as Fascists are irresponsible headline-seekers who have little clue what they are on about. Now, if the term Theocratic were used, they'd be much closer to the truth. •Jim62sch• 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Any English speaker could infer that your comments were intended to attack the person, and did not respond to the point made by the person. That is the definition of ad hominem. As for raising the question of Communism, I have explained my point, which was not to tag anyone with that label, but only to show how it could be done with the same level of support and validity as has been done here. But back to the point, please cite the evidence that Dobson has advocated a theocratic state.Frjohnwhiteford 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And your point was not really a great analogy. Look, we're going around in circles here. As for Dobson, as has been explained earlier any English speaker could infer that Dobson is talking of Dominionism when one looks at his Citizen publication. •Jim62sch• 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing about that page that would make him a Dominionist that I can see. What specifically do you see there that proves that he is a Dominionist? How is what you find there more anti-democratic than what you might find on the People for the America Way web site, or a web site for any group that advocates a particular set of values or policies? Frjohnwhiteford 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase: you see Dobson as a moderate, I see him being as radical Dawkins. 'Nuff said. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't quite see your point. Believing that the Kingdom of God is purely spiritual is not an odd, fringe position among evangelicals - 20 or 30 years ago that was the mainstream. I really don't see Leslie saying that everyone who sees the Kingdom of God in physical terms is a dominionist, just a heretic.
As for the groups she included - Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade and Rick Warren have have been linked with this movement by others, so I'm not sure what your point is. I also don't know what you mean about fighting poverty and AIDS - again, I think you my be reading too much into the article. You seem to be dismissing that article based on the theological position of the author, which is nonsense. 72.198.121.115 12:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It is simply not the case that the idea that the Kingdom of God was wholly a future thing was the mainstream view of Christians. That is a pre-millennial view, which is a view that is common among Evangelicals, but it is historically not the mainstream Christian view, nor was it ever the primary view held by Protestants. All Christians believe that the Kingdom of God is not fully realized. Pre-millennialists believe that it is something the Christ will bring about at the end of the age. Others believe to one extent or another that the Church has some role in advancing that Kingdom prior to the final realization of the Kingdom at the end of the Age. Frjohnwhiteford 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


One might add that the attitude that the Kingdom of God is wholly in the next life is not the attitude of the Christians who led the Abolitionist movement. They were definitely Dominionists, by that articles definition, because they did believe that the Kingdom of God was in some ways advanced by the advancement of justice, righteousness, and holiness -- in this life. Perhaps we should add William Wilberforce to the list of advocates of Dominionism. Or William Booth and Catherine Booth, who led the paramilitary wing of Dominionism... the Salvation Army.Frjohnwhiteford 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While now the terminology is being used more nearly as the scholars use it, there is something missing in accounting for how they distinguish appropriate influences of faith from potentially destructive or anti-democratic influences. If this central mystery could be approached without insinuation of bad faith or politicking on the part of these researchers, it may be that agreement is close at hand for all parties regarding how to improve the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That something missing is what I am looking for here... and when someone tells me what that distinction is, I might very well agree with it. I personally don't want to live in a country that is ruled by a Reconstructionist dictator, who has thrown out the Constitution, and is imposing his version of Calvin's Geneva on America. But that's a far cry from Christians campaigning against slavery, pornography, or abortion through the democratic process. And citing God's approval of a position in such a campaign, and even do so in apocalyptic terms either does not necessarily make one a Dominionist, or else Abraham Lincoln and the Abololitionists were Dominionists. Consider the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic... is this a Dominionist anthem? Was William Blake a Dominionist for writing the words to the unofficial English national anthem "Jerusalem" which speak of establishing the Kingdom of God in England:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of Desire;
Bring me my Spear; O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of Fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.
And this also brings up another point, is the definition of Soft Dominionism too narrowly focused on American culture? Can only Americans be Dominionists? If one believes that England is a Christian Country, and that Christians should work through the democratic process to influence its institutions and laws in a Christian direction, are they Dominionists, or are they not simply because they are not Americans, though they otherwise fit the criteria? Frjohnwhiteford 10:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
How can one cite "God's approval"? Who dares to speak for Him? Is he not unknowable and beyond human comprehension? Are not His ways His alone, and not human? •Jim62sch• 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
God is unknowable in his essence. As Lao Zi put it, "the Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao". Which is why Orthodox theology uses an apophatic approach, that has some parallels with the Dao De Jing. However, where we part company is that Orthodox Christians believe that while we cannot know God as He is in His Essence, we can know God by the things that He does, by His creation, and by His direct revelation. And so we can know what God approves of by knowing what Scripture and Apostolic Tradition tell us about that. How that applies to situations and issues that are not directly addressed by Scripture or Tradition is a little less cut and dried, and so that's where you often find disagreements. But we can know, for example, that God hates the shedding of innocent blood, because He tells us so in Scripture. We know that this includes abortion, because we have this clearly stated throughout the Tradition of the Church, beginning with the Didache 2:2, which is the oldest Christian text outside of the New Testament... which many scholars argue dates from the 1st century. But specifically, I was referring to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which clearly suggests God's approval of the Union's fight against Slavery: "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free..." Now Southerners liked to cite Isaiah 43:6, which says "I will say to the north, Give up," but most people would say that this was prooftexting. :) Frjohnwhiteford 00:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Putting what Frjohn is saying in terms that I can more readily understand - our Traditions are to be a holy understanding, which fully accords with the fullness of the Truth, revealed in Jesus Christ. But this marriage of heart, mind and strength with the Truth is not the denial that it seems at first to be, that the same truth is known elsewhere, only misunderstood (and therefore, its holiness is not yet vindicated, but it rather appears to us as though it were enslaved, or captive, to misunderstanding, to unbelief). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(ri) Well the citing of Isaiah was certainly out of context (one of the things that irritates me about some Christians). Another, similar, item would be the works of the Exegetes who attempt to marry totally unrelated texts to sanctify a specific point.
As for the rest, yes, from a standpoint of Abrahamic theology you are correct -- however, one must accept the Bible (or Koran, or Talmud, or Mishnah, or Hadith, etc.) as sacred text in order for those assumption to be valid. If one does not (and I do not), then the certainty evaporates.
One note: it's very refreshing to see a minister/pastor (not sure what you prefer) who appears to have studied many other religions. Too many Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc., leaders only know about their own religion; something I see as quite self-limiting. •Jim62sch• 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the quote from Isaiah was out of context. I am sure that even the Southerners who cited it had their tongue firmly in cheek when doing so. As for the authority of the Scriptures, obviously one who rejects that authority is not going to be swayed by citations from it. That requires moving the discussion back a few steps further up the chain of basic assumptions about the nature of the universe, and how it came into being... but that is another subject. When you are discussing the views of other people, however, you should first understand what they actually believe themselves, and when you talk about them, you should present their views in a way that they would recognize and accept, before you commence with taking them apart. That has not happened so far in the article we have. We have the taking apart critiques, but we do not have a fair summary of what they actually believe, given their view of the universe. Frjohnwhiteford 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. An explanation of what is being rebutted should definitely come before any rebuttal. Otherwise it is just vaccuus blabbering. •Jim62sch• 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That is really about all I have been asking for. I know this article is not going to be written the way I would write it. I just want it to fairly represent the real beliefs of the people that the label is being placed upon. Frjohnwhiteford 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
72.198.121.115, that article seems to subsume under the heading of dominionism any work that is said to "advance the kingdom" but that is non-spiritual not strictly spiritual (like fighting poverty and AIDS or Crusade's practice of disciple-making, which the article doesn't describe but just says is incorrect). I'm not saying the purely spiritual kingdom is an uncommon view but rather that it is not the only view and that (nearly) any contrary view is not therefore dominionist, which seems to be the implication of the article. In short, the article uses the term dominionism quite broadly -- too broadly, IMO. (PS, I notice you didn't respond about creating an account. Come on, drink the Kool-aid!) --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no basis for saying (and I know that Flex is not claiming this) that believing that the Kingdom of God is advanced by fighting poverty is in a different category from believing that the Kingdom of God is advanced by fighting the killing of the innocent, or fighting pornography. All of these are spiritual issues, that are also practical matters in the real world. Frjohnwhiteford 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
By "non-spiritual" I meant "not strictly spiritual." I corrected it above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you are saying here? Are you saying that fighting poverty, fighting AIDS, and making disciples are purely spiritual matters, but fighting abortion or pornography is not strictly spiritual... i.e., that it is somehow less spiritual? Frjohnwhiteford 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Frjohn, I'm not saying that any particular "physical" activities are somehow more spiritual than others. I stuck with the examples I originally used because they were mentioned specifically in the aforementioned, overly broad article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The questions Frjohn asks are my sincere questions as well. But there is something "cloudy" here, and it's something that CBerlet has a grasp of and we do not. We need to ask. Chip, I'm asking non-argumentatively, please explain the principle that makes anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion and criminalization of marijuana, etc. a threat to freedom, and Dominionism. Help us to understand how God is glorified, in contrast, by saving the trees and whales, and in working to end poverty. We don't see it yet, but have we put our finger on where the difference is located? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(ri) I seem to have wandered into a revival meeting here. Can we discuss this without all the rending of clothes and Hosannahs? •Jim62sch• 22:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think that would help, go ahead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, we were discussing a relevant issue here. I would suggest that if you don't like discussing theology, that theological discussions (of which this is one) are probably not the kind of discussions you would want to participate in. Frjohnwhiteford 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a way to discuss it rationally, without the spiritual effluvium. You seem quite well-read, so I assume you can put it in less hyper-theological terms. •Jim62sch• 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't even share the theology of the people I am defending here, and so there is no hyper-theological effluvium on my part. I just believe that people should not be treated unjustly, and smearing people with things that they do not believe is unjust. To talk about what they actually do believe requires that we discuss theology. One could be a fair minded atheist, and do so in way that would be fair to the people we are discussing. Whether their views are true or not is not what we are discussing. Whether their views are being fairly characterized is -- and for us to evaluate whether we have been fair or not requires a theological discussion. Frjohnwhiteford 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. A non-theological perspective is of value, even on a theological topic, when theology impinges upon or threatens peoples' lives regardless of their perspective: as it does in this case (or, as it's reputed to do, anyway). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, discuss the changes first, please. Reverts without discussion are not helpful. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been warned by several editors to do just that. You have no consensuus for the changes you keep inserting. •Jim62sch• 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, actually - I haven't been warned by anyone.
Changes are not made by consensus. Consensus prevents change. When there is no consensus, it's time for change. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the "POV" being described is not my own, I wonder what you mean by calling them "POV", Jim. Take a minute to explain. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, the reason that there is a "NPOV" banner on the page is precisely because there is no consensus. Instead of arguing back and forth, reverting as though it's some sort of emergency, tell me what you think is wrong. I'll try not to be unreasonable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noted the problem in each of the revert edits: the changes are so weasel-worded as to be useless, and rather than just state facts, this weasel-wording very definitely shows a "well, they may say that, but they're wrong" POV. •Jim62sch• 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. The changes were exactly opposite of what you say; and your reverts restored what Wikipedia means by "weasel-words". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A matter of taste I suppose. In any case, the lead is closer to what it should be now. •Jim62sch• 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sincerely gratified, that you think so. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

banner unhelpful

Now that the banner has attracted the appropriate attention, so that the problems of collaboration are being wrestled with, do you think that we could please remove it? In my opinion, these banners are a pall of antagonism draped over our work. IMHO, if we're working together, we don't need them. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which banner are you referring to? The one at the top of the talk page, or the POV tag at the top of the article? Frjohnwhiteford 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; thank you: the POV tag at the top of the article. We can agree that the article is POV, and work on that, without the nag box, I think. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the banner should remain until more consensus is reached and the number of daily edits dwindles. It seems to me that the article is still in considerable flux because of disputes, and unaware users should know that there are some neutrality concerns expressed about the content. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Flex on this. We need to get somewhere close to a neutral text before you remove the POV tag. Frjohnwhiteford 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Feloniousmonk, who has not participated in this discussion, has simply made the decision and removed the POV tag. Is this how collaborative editing is supposed to work? This article, as it currently stands, is not significantly different than it was when Chip put it there, and Chip is hardly an "ax-grinder" for the side of the discussion that Feloniousmonk was obviously referencing. It is fairly clear that Feloniousmonk has his own axes to grind on this issue. He is not a dispassionate Vulcan, or a "Just the facts ma'am" Sgt. Joe Friday participant. If this is going to be a collaborative effort, I would think some comment from him as to why he thinks an edit should be made would be warranted, and he should wait for some comments from others. Frjohnwhiteford 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting -- what precisely do you know about FM? You've only been here since 10:49, 19 March 2007, and have 203 edits, none of which appear to be on articles FM edits, save this one. •Jim62sch• 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've have been here long enough to note that he has a definite perspective on this issue. Frjohnwhiteford 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack. Be nice. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a valid question, one that notes that the two editors have had very little contact, and that the ascription of motives is not Kosher. In addition, if you feel that statements such as "It is fairly clear that Feloniousmonk has his own axes to grind on this issue. He is not a dispassionate Vulcan, or a "Just the facts ma'am" Sgt. Joe Friday participant." are do not meet the criteria of ad hominem attacks, you really might want to reconsider your role here. No offense Mark, but you can't turn a blind eye to true ad homs, while inferring ad homs from someone else. •Jim62sch• 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In his edit, his summary referred to those who felt the POV tag should stay as being "ax-grinders". I simply pointed out that he has his own axes to grind here. I think that is fairly obvious. I am not a neutral party here either. I have my own set of opinions. But it strains credulity for people who have taken a very specific side of this discussion to act as if they did not also have their own set of opinions. Frjohnwhiteford 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, and Frjohn, everyone has a perspective. This is why credulity is strained. I am saying, go ahead and kick the stool from beneath credulity's feet: credulity be hanged. Just report the perspectives, without prejudice. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wise words, Mark.  :) •Jim62sch• 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Amen. Again, I am not asking that we say whether their views are right or not, just that we accurately and fairly say what their views actually are. Frjohnwhiteford 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is precisely what I've been seeking -- a nontheistic, "objective", article on a theistic/sociological/political subject. If we settle a theistic or atheistic tone for the article we'll just end up creating a POV article. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, I know that it's hard to accept, but we do not acknowledge the existence of the "nontheistic" or the "objective" - we simply cannot write from that perspective, because it is not real to us. However, we do acknowledge the reality that such a thing is real according to your perspective. This makes writing from that perspective your job, not ours. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Generally, one should be able to write, or at least understand, the other perspectives. I could very easily write this from a conservative Christian perspective (as with most nontheists, I was raised in a Christian Church (ELCA)), or from a rabid atheist perspective. There's a wikipedia topic (guideline?) on this, but I can't remember what it's called; if I find it, I'll post it here.
Note; do not take this as criticism (negative sense): how can one rationally argue a position without understanding the "opposing" (or at least "other") positions? In real debating, the best debators are those who take on a viewpoint that is antithetical to their own and successfully defend that position. I've found it to be a valuable lesson for life as well: if you understand the other viewpoints, you can better refine and understand your own. •Jim62sch• 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say what I mean, clearly. I can write for the atheist's perspective (WP:WFTE); in fact, it's my hope that I may write for that perspective convincingly. But, I cannot write as though there is a place between atheism and theism, where the two perspectives agree regardless of what the truth actually is - this is what you asked us to do. To do that would be to deny God, and I cannot do that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you found it, cool and thanks.
Nontheism isn't exactly what you think.
Truth is a rather thorny concept -- given that humans are inherently subjective, truth too is subjective. In fact, that is precisely why I think theists and atheists are fooling themselves: one cannot prove that gods exist nor can one prove that gods don't. These are simply matters of belief, not truth. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I very much appreciate that you take time to make more sure that we are talking about the same thing. It is not a waste of time to do that, on an article about controversy - although it will annoy people who believe that resolving a controversy is simply a matter of intelligence, knowing facts, regardless of belief. I do think that I understand what nontheism is supposed to be; and as I understand it, nontheism is not an admissable part of my belief - although clearly, people such as Crossan, Bultmann and Bishop Spong obviously disagree with me. I approach these matters of subjectivity quite differently, and with less despair of harmonizing, within my beliefs, the Truth found in various conflicting perspectives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I think one would drive himself nuts trying to harmonise all "Truths" within his beliefs -- in the end you'd end up with a mish-mash of nebulous confused gibberish. Yes, it is very valuable to look at and understand all of the various truth/belief systems, as understanding these systems can greatly reduce the animosity that exists in today's world; however, on a personal level, you have to be happy with the system you invent for yourself, with what you perceive as truth, and then, in my opinion at least, just try to be a decent person, especially to your family. OK, humanist/non-theist homily over.  ;) •Jim62sch• 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Conflicting beliefs cannot be harmonized. But truth is not the same as beliefs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not necessarily the same, but it depends on your definition of "Truth", and how and where you decide to apply that definition. When one speaks of the truth of any religious tome, or uses "truth" to describe any religious dogma or tenet, truth and belief lose their distinction. For example, in this sentence, "our Traditions are to be a holy understanding, which fully accords with the fullness of the Truth, revealed in Jesus Christ.", truth is clearly subjective and has been conflated with belief. You may believe that Jesus revealed "the Truth", but that is a subjective truth that can neither be proven nor disproven, hence it's claim to being truth is tenuous at best. •Jim62sch• 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The truth is not "subjective" if by that you mean, what we believe in is our own imagination or understanding, or the imagination or understanding of the authors or interpretors of the testimonies in which we have believed.
However, we do believe that the truth is God, His revealed purposes, and His revealed will. We believe God intends to make himself known, and he is known. Apart from belief, the truth is nevertheless the same; but while my belief is not conformed to the truth, knowledge of this God would seem obscured, less than real, perhaps only "real" in a "subjective" sense. If belief does not contradict that truth, I should see the same truth confirmed everywhere - regardless of whether the truth is believed everywhere. And, believing that this is the nature of Truth and of belief, a basis is provided according to belief for seeing a pluralistic society, an anti-totalitarian but orderly society, as both possible and desirable, because it is conducive to the better knowledge of the truth. This is not subjectivism - but it does insist on the significance of subjectivity - that is, it recognizes that subjectivity introduces distortion of the knowledge of the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you seem to have proven my point. In order for this, "the truth is God, His revealed purposes, and His revealed will" to be true, you must believe in the existence of a deity, and as all belief is subjective this "truth" becomes subjective, depending as it does on belief not on empirical fact.
In any case, I assume that you believe in some absolute or universal truth, albeit a "revealed" one? •Jim62sch• 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I could say that you prove my point, that when belief in God is viewed from the perspective of unbelief, it appears "subjective".
To your question: yes. I believe that God knows himself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point: the existence of a deity is neither provable nor disprovable, neither confirmable nor disconfirmable. The leap to either the theist or the atheist position requires a "belief" in a set of various value judgments based on non-empirical data, hence that "truth" is subjective. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that I do see your point - but unless I am able to convince you that I see it, it seems to me to be worthwhile to continue this meta-discussion. My answer is, as I've been trying to say, you are right: I am not able to prove or disprove the existence of God to you; however, God is able, and He will do so. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The perspective everything should be written from is WP:NPOV which makes no assumptions about whether or not a deity exists. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my point four days ago. •Jim62sch• 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope that I made my response clear, though. I adopt a neutral point of view, not as being itself a point of view but rather as a procedure or criterion for editing, which requires me to assist in the accurate presentation of every relevant perspective, without prejudice and regardless of whether my "credulity is strained". I adopt this procedure without abandoning my perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Illustration edits

The purpose of my recent edits is not to dictate what the article should say, but to indicate what it ought to look like. I hope that my comments on this talk page will be helpful in making that distinction clear. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits that I've made under the section I've tentatively called "Declaration of culture war" are primarily for the purpose of correcting the flow of the description. The replaced version lurched a bit, with numerous false starts, and the result seemed to me to lack continuity with what followed. There are numerous unsourced comments in the new version, however. Again, the purpose here is to provide an illustration of how the article could be more helpfully structured. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible text

The entire start of this article is now rendered almost totally incomprehensible to the avergae reader. It simply makes no sense. This cannot possibly have been the intent, but the direction of the recent discussion on this page makes it clear that it is difficult for some to stay away from obscure religious debates and focus on what Wikipedia considers reputable published sources. We need to bring this discussion back down to earth. There are reputable published sources that claim Dominionism is a real trend. There are reputable published sources that claim Dominionism is a paranoid concoction of liberls. We need to use NPOV and other Wiki guidelines to edit this page. We are not doing the angels on the head of a pin thing here. I am willing to try really hard to help edit this article. I am not willing to spend my time trapped in a fascinating yet totally off target discussion of the Kingdom of God and what I think that means. When I take communion, I deal with God. When I edit Wiki, I am not debating theology. Render unto... --Cberlet 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a light edit, and would support more simplification. Mkmcconn has done some good work. I think the content is mostly there, and will be easier to see as we remove extra parts and tighten others. Tom Harrison Talk 02:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree with you Chip, but I don't think editing an article can be done apart from an understanding of the subject matter of the article, and trying to get to the bottom of some of the distinctions that are being made between who is a Dominionist and who is not one is not the Angels dancing on the head of a pin thing. This is a theological issue... although there are certainly other elements as well, and so we cannot discuss it without discussing theology. I am not asking you or any one else to lay out your own theology, but rather to lay out what you think Dominionist and Soft Dominionist theology is, and to of course offer sources supporting that. In any case, however, what I would suggest is that you offer a proposed introduction, and I would also be interested in seeing any proposed edits you might have to my proposed section on Soft Dominionism. Frjohnwhiteford 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


In case you're interested, when I take communion, I am reminded that I am made in the image of God - just as Caesar is. When I take communion, I am reminded to pray for Caesar, who is no more (nor less) of a sinner than I am - which is the service that I render for him as God's servant. This is why I submit to Caesar's dominion, under God. It is not in the interest of communion, therefore, to turn my worship into a political rally - to do so would not be to render unto God that service which is God's; and it also does not offer to Caesar the service which belongs to Caesar.
It would be no wonder that this topic is so controversial, if there is in fact no interest at all in understanding it, among those who study it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The average reader needs more help figuring out what we are talking about. The opening section has too many obscure references, terms that are unfamiliar, and byzantine sentence structures. I do not see a need to discuss the infinite number of Kingdom of God theological positions.
As orginally coined, defined, and used by Barron, Diamond, Clarkson, Lyons, and Berlet (aka User:Cberlet), Dominionism is a tendency among politically active Christians to understand their duties to God to include taking over and controlling (or dominating) the current civil governmental structures in order to make America a de facto "Christian Nation" run by Christians, or a de jure theocracy or theonomy run by Christians under Biblical law.
This narrow and specific definition is now being supplanted in some popular press accounts with the use of the term "Dominionism" to refer to the entire Christian Right (15%+/- of voters), or in some cases all conservative politically active Christians (probably 30%+/- of voters), or even all politically-active religious people (probably 70%+ of voters).
I think it makes sense to lead off with the narrow and specific definition, and then mention its expansion, and then mention the criticism of the use of the term.--Cberlet 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, but rather to just understand what your understanding of this is. Do you see Dobson as being an advocate of theocracy or theonomy? You are making a distinction between Dominionists and the Christian Right. Dobson is really about as mainstream as it gets. If he is a Dominionist, then it would seem that the label should be applied to the entire Christian Right. So where do you see the distinction? Many people in the Christian Right... probably most, would distance themselves from someone like Gary North, but I don't know of anyone in the Christian Right who does not see Dobson as maintstream. Frjohnwhiteford 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the page seems to be advancing by collaboration and discussion. That will probably work better than whole-sale reverting. Nobody has a veto on the content. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Chip, I only ask for your patience and your continued feed-back. We'll try very hard to make sure that your objections and recommendations are not overlooked. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Chip, following your recommendation I used a narrow and specific definition, based on your comments here. I have no doubt that you will be able to supply a citation to support this definition. If the sentence structure appears too byzantine, please repair it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The definition was reverted, evidently without reading. See below, and help me to polish it up. I'd also like to see a journalist who actually uses the term as you say it's used (to refer in a general way, to the "Christian right"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

journalistic v scholarly

The first helpful distinction that we've struck, is the journalistic/scholarly distinction: the "broad" and "narrow" distinction. I regret that Chip didn't have time to look at my "narrow" definition before another user reverted it. Please comment on this language, Chip:

Dominionism is a trend among some socially conservative Christians, especially in the United States, to transform America into a nation under God; meaning, these activists seek either a nation dominated by Christians, or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of law.[citation needed]
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

seeking advice: how to ban

Although I've been an administrator for quite a while now, I don't know how to ban users - since I've never done it. But there are some people here whose contributions to the discussion are only personal attacks, and who revert rather than collaborate. What's the procedure for preventing them from putting any more flies in our frosting? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, as an admin working on this page, you should not be involved at all in the process. Using admin tools to "win" a perceived edit war is taboo. Additionally, while you might not like the comments of certain users, unless the person specifically attacks someone, as in "you're a fool" or "you don't know what you're talking about" you need to tread very carefully. Also note that comments directed at a specific position are permitted as they are ad rem comments. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverts will be counted. Personal attacks will be noted. Collaboration will be welcomed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocking for personal attacks is questionable; indef blocking (which is effectively the same as a ban) is done only for specific circumstances. This includes Vandalism only accounts (I'm talking PENISPENISPENIS or similar unquestionable vandalism here) and sock accounts created by indef blocked or banned users which are created to avoid the block/ban. As an administrator, if you feel someone should be indef blocked for disruption, personal attacks, and generally being a negative net result on the project, post on WP:CSN. This will start the process to determine whether a community ban is indicated. Otherwise, only Jimbo or ArbCom can ban. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to clarify. Hopefully, administrative action will probably not be necessary, if the collaborative process is restored. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance

I'm really unclear as to why this was included. It seems like a big "so what". Maybe Jeremiah can explain the relevance:
Stewardship over the earth, as examplified in Genesis 1:26-28, is also one of four foundational principles of the CDA, a Christian democratic and centrist political party.[16]
•Jim62sch• 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is worthwhile to clarify that the command to take dominion over the earth is not the exclusive property of the right wing. This should probably be pointed out in a more general way, however, rather than by listing specific examples (which is confusing). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand the point now, but yes, it could be phrased more clearly. As we know from history, the desire for absolute power is a hallmark of people from all ideologies and religions. Theocracy, however, is generally a right-wing idea, although certain tenets of socialism, as well as a less literal reading of the bible, especially a reading that focuses on certain "liberal" aspects in the gospels, could support a theocracy. •Jim62sch• 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that in the present historical context, explicit theocracy would be by definition a "right wing" idea. This is not to deny, however, that "left wing" free democratic ideas, or Christian democratic ideas may be "theocratic" in a more subtle or implicit sense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. •Jim62sch• 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

perceived trend

That phrase is rather odd, there simply must be a better way to say it. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed to describes a trend noted by sociologists. Better? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to journalists for now. Dominionism is not discussed in academia. --LC 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to journalists and sociologists, until the credentials of the writers can be described without prejudice. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sara Diamond is a sociologist with a Ph.D. and Roads to Dominion was published by a scholarly publishing house.--Cberlet 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sociologists is really the better word. That journalists use the term merely means that they picked it up off the buzz-word list. •Jim62sch• 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want the article to imply that journalism is a derivative discipline, however. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet this is giving false authority to these views. Diamond has never written about Dominionism in any academic journals, and her Ph.D. work does not mention it. --LC 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. To distinguish her work as a journalist, from her work as a sociologist, will require a closely discerning eye. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it will require a reliable source, otherwise it would be OR. 129.15.160.51 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The "reliable source" is what I mean by "a closely discerning eye". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Already provided above, from the American Political Science Review. --LC 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And where does the Federici review say that this book, which Federici says comes out of her dissertation, is journalism and not sociology? He is critical of the analysis, yes. He says that the writing style is journalistic, but it's simply false to say that the Federici review can in any way be used to support this assertion. You shouldn't misrepresent sources, LC. 129.15.160.51 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot recall giving a positive notion that Diamond should be seen as a journalist. Call her an author if you like. But to call her work scholarly demands that she has written about Dominionism (specifically) in at least some academic journal of some sort. --LC 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you say that, "writing journalistically, sociologist Sara Diamond opines blah, blah"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, because that is espousing Federici's POV as a fact. Unless there is some sort of general agreement on the issue (and I don't mean "general agreement among Wikipedia editors") or a court ruling or something like that, we can't do that. We can't take one reviewer's opinion as a fact. Guettarda 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, Diamond herself may in some way make it clear that she is speaking "journalistically". Right? Alternatively, we may simply point out that Frederici characterizes Diamonds "style" as journalistic - as long as we do so in such a way that prevents the transference or importation of a settled judgment, that her comments so-characterized are in fact journalistic. Am I following your guide, here? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your concern for strict accuracy should receive every accommodation. You are now running up against only my ignorance. This obstacle can be overcome easily, by boldly overcoming my ignorance, pouring your observation into the right place in the flow of the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sara Diamond is a noted scholar

Reviews of Roads to Dominion

"... an excellent and highly educational book by a sociologist who writes in readable English. It teems with information about the history, leaders, organizations, and ideas of the major conservative movements of the last 50 years in the U.S.... Nobody exceeds Diamond... in the range and depth of information she provides about the conservative movements she has studied in historical perspective: how they arise, their resources, their ideologies, and the reasons for their successes and failures."

-Choice

"A unique work that may well remain unmatched for years to come. It has an incredible breadth and depth of scholarship and reporting on its subject matter....Read this book, if your read no other, between now and the start of the next Millennium."

-The American Reporter

"...provides a strong sociological study of the U.S.... One of the more comprehensive studies available, this is a must' for anyone studying right wing group movements."

-The Bookwatch

"Should be required reading for any serious student of the subject."

-Political Science Quarterly

"This is, without a doubt, the most important soci ological study of the U.S. right ever written. In a field so often dominated by polemic and jeremiad, this is the most lucid, systematic, sober, and sobering analysis I have ever read. This really is a landmark study, and will shape the contours of future research for generations to come."

-Gerry O'Sullivan, Fordham University

Reviews of Not by Politics Alone

"The Christian Right's growth into a formidable social movement and political power over the last couple of decades has provoked alarm in many quarters. In this sweeping and well-documented survey of the movement, Diamond concludes that its survival is due to the diversity of its many subcultural institutions and to its links with the Republican Party....Like her Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, this is a balanced, eye-opening and accessible read."

-Publishers Weekly

"Opposing the Left's tendency to demonize the Christian Right, Diamond insists on taking it seriously, endeavoring to understand the sources of its strong appeal to millions of U.S. citizens."

-Booklist

"Sara Diamond demonstrates once again that she is one of the best researchers of right-wing movements in the United States....A 'must read'."

-Catherine A. Lugg, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey

"Diamond's strength as a researcher is in the details. Through her careful case studies--of, among other subjects, home schooling, millennialism and antigay activism--you see the Christian right blending its religious arguments with ones deployed by the secular elites they despise."

-The Nation

"Enormously informative....Written with great authority, and a measure of empathy as well....This is a first-rate study of a hugely important contemporary movement."

-Frances Fox Piven, coauthor of Why Americans Don't Vote

The personal attacks on the scholarship of Sara Diamond are shameful.--Cberlet 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to me? I'm not making any personal attacks. Diamond's book is no doubt a valuable reference work on the American Right. Furthermore, these reviews do not attest to the concept of Dominionism in particular. None of these reviews even mention Dominionism. --LC 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Chip is having a hard time hearing the subtle distinction that you are making. I also had to read these sentences several times, to understand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A point so subtle as to be evanescent. I'd wager that Chip gets your point just fine. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure - because, Chip perceived what LC said as being an attack on Diamond's credentials as a scholar; but, what LC was actually pointing out is that, Diamond does not seem to have commented on "Dominionism" in her capacity as a scholar. She does not use this term in her scholarly, peer-reviewed writings. But she does use it (or might use it - we'd need to see the support) in an avocational capacity, as a commentator, an essayist, a shaper of opinion and action. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Seemed like an attack to me as well, and the point that "None of these reviews even mention Dominionism" is not really relevant. Additionally, whether she has yet used the term Dominionism in her "scholarly" works does not seem germane, either. In our society, when someone whose scholarly credentials are well-established speaks, their words carry the weight of scholarship. Yes, this is a societal version of the argumentum ad verecundiam, but it is a fallacy which we, in America at least, freely accept. Even on this page, I've noted that a similar phenomenon esists: Frjohn is allowed much more leeway regarding argumenta ad hominem than is anyone else, simply, I suspect, because he has self-identified as a pastor. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you think he is treated preferentially should be treated as significant. It might a clue that we're overlooking what you're saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Come on Mark - you issue warnings to everyone who speaks slightly out of turn, you issue veiled threats to block people...but you haven't said a word about John's repeated use of insults, his lack of civility and his apparent unwillingness to be polite. It's very clear that you are treating him differently. Guettarda 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to treat him differently. My problem is that I think I understand him, and I'm not sure that I understand how he is offending - what I read as frustration and confusion, you seem to be reading as attacks. But anyway, although I'm sorry that I made myself seem important to working things out, I will try harder to sympathize and to see if I might help, somehow. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be an accurate statement. I do not think John is being treated differently, I know he is. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty safe to say it is a duck. •Jim62sch• 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I will take your word for it, and I'll try to repair that. Please continue to be patient with me; I'm having trouble seeing things your way, but I am trying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

rewrite

I don't think the current rewrite made the article more neutral. It reads as if Dominionism as trend is true. Why should the views of Diamond et al have more weight that those of Kurtz et all? Both sides are playing a political game, and we as Wikipedia editors should not cater to either one of them particularly. --LC 20:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that scholars and journalists have written about "Dominionism." Even a conservative Christian Evangelical (Barron) has written about dominionism. Martin does not use the term, but discusses the concept in detail. The term exists and is used. Attemtps to deny this are not constructive.--Cberlet 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed -- they merely detract from the factual nature of the article.
LC -- please get an account. •Jim62sch• 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an example of a peer-reviewed article that discusses Dominionism. Let's see the scholarship then. Barron's work is mainly concerned with Kingdom Now theology and Christian Reconstructionism. His notions on "Dominionism" do not require a separate article per se. --LC 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, peer-review mostly deals with science. •Jim62sch• 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that science is the realm you have encountered peer-review, but there are scholarly journals for Biblical literature, Theology, and Philosophy. Frjohnwhiteford 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
LC -- the dirth of weight given to Kurtz et al can be entirely accounted for by the lack of verifiable content. All we need is reliable sources, from which their case can be made more full. The problem you are talking about now is not "neutrality", but "balance" or "fairness" (a product) - this takes much more work than neutrality (which is a criterion for the presentation of content, rather than a product). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous peer-review social science journals. I am on the board of one, and am an anonymous reviewer for another. But nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines is the admonition that "scholalry" only refers to text published in peer review journals. It also refers to other material published in reputable academic or scholarly sources. Guilford Press is a scholarly publishing house. --Cberlet 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, Cberlet. But wouldn't you also acknowledge that a scholar might write or speak in a context wherein his remarks are not intended by the scholar to be taken as a contribution to scholarship, but rather as an expression of personal alarm, or partisan angst? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms handles some of my concerns. --LC 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All words were originally neologisms.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But, in this case, two parties use the word "dominion" to mean almost opposite things. In the case of the observers, it is taken to mean domination by me or people who agree with me. But in the case of those who use the term to describe their own views, it means, "every human being exists and acts as the image of God - either for good or for evil". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
See commencement, cleave, aught, buckle, certain, custom, quantum, sanction, etc. •Jim62sch• 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could we please continue this discussion in the section below? It has intersected, and I don't want to be responding to the same issues in two different sections.--Cberlet 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trapped by terminology

Following LC's pointed observation regarding neo-logisms, it's now appearing that one of the problems we need to overcome is, that this term is not necessarily the only term under which scholars and journalists are collecting their observations. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

How do we harmonize the terminology, without selecting one term as being canonical? There is no practical difference between Sullivan's "christianism", this "dominionism", another writer's "Christian nationalism", someone else's "Christian mandate", and someone else's "christian theocrats". What should we do? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism gets over 200,000 google hits. This isn't just something used by "scholars and journalists" - this a term that's fairly widely used, and, if you look at the sources, it's being used in religious circles. The term Christian nationalism in a US context appears to be synonymous with Dominionism (at least that's how Goldberg appears to use it), but it can be used in a very different way in a Lebanese context (since the rationale behind splitting Lebanon from Syria was an attempt by the French to create a homeland for their Christian allies). It appears to have a somewhat different (but probably related, given the shared Calvinist roots) meaning in South Africa, where the Afrikaner ideology was based on the idea that they had been promised dominion over the land (and non-whites) by God. Christianism, as the dab page shows, has more than one meaning.
Since dominionism is the most widely used term, and the one that is most commonly used for this phenomenon, it seems to me that the naming convention would favour the article being here. Guettarda 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Since someone brought Google stats up down below, a rough comparison: Islamofascism (494,000 Google hits, 36 Google Scholar hits) and Dominionism (211,000 Google hits, 53 Google Scholar hits). Is there any secondary source material that deals with Dominionism exclusively? Does the term Dominionism appear in tertiary sources such as dictionaries or encyclopedias? If not, then it seems to be a neologism. --LC 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Standard dictionaries and encyclopedias are notoriously slow to react. The term "Intelligent Design" took ten years to appear in an encyclopedia. •Jim62sch• 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What is your recommendation for how writers describing the same phenomenon may be included here, although they do not use the same terminology (or hypothetically, may not "like" this term)? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That is, how can we be in a position to decide that all these writers, in their various contexts, are really after all talking about what this article is about - even if they, or some other reliable source, doesn't say so? It seems that we would have to distinguish those who use the term from those who don't, and would be prevented from including them unless their own writings give us explicit warrant to do so. Right? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That would look something like this, I suppose: the source would say, "Where the present writer uses the term falafalism, other writers prefer the term Dominionism or Christianism" — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the original authors who started to use the term "Dominionism" used it to describe a trend that incorporated both "hard" theocratic Dominion theology, and the milder or "soft" version that was "Christian Nationalist" but not necessarily "theocratic" or "theonomic." This is what Barron was trying to explain in his book where he was writing about Dominion theology, especially Christian Reconstructionism, but also wrote about the softer form that was spreading from Christian Reconstructionism into the Christian right. If you read the Dominion theology page, it tries to explain this. The problem is that several authors now use the term "Dominionism" to describe the entire Christian Right, or even all politically active Christians. I would argue that the original scholarly authors who popularized the term and concept (Diamond, Barron, Clarkson, Martin, Berlet, Berlet & Lyons), get to be highlighted with their narrower and more precise and complex definitions, with mention that the term has spread into a broader usage, and that some critics of the term point this problem out, or dismiss the entire notion. In this frame, Dominionism is not necessarily the same thing as Christianism, Christian Nationalism, or Dominion Theology.--Cberlet 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Responding to the question by Mkmcconn, the way to address the different uses of the term is to describe the significant uses, and attribute each definition to notable proponents of such definition. That is what WP:NPOV asks us to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Jossi's answer relieves some of the pressure created by Cberlet's and LC's remarks - otherwise I think my head might pop.
I might as well speak personally to this dilemma. I confess that, when I vote it is as a Christian that I determine how I vote - and moreover, I hope my guy wins, for Christian reasons. I can also envision things going badly, should my guy lose - if the other guy advances an anti-Christian idea of law and thinks, for example, that the constitution prohibits the application of religious reasoning in public. So, although my neighbor may misunderstand, I sincerely desire the good of my neighbor. I wish, for his sake, that I had better candidates to choose from to represent my views. I regret that the trees under which I pray for the Kingdom of God are full of crows and starlings (I regret that Evangelicalism, American tradition, the Christian Right, and the Republican Party are full of mean, noisy, obnoxious and silly people - among whom I seek not to be one). However, I discover that what I am doing, if I do anything my critics don't understand, is thought of as the very epitome of evil. I find my love for my neighbor, if it proceeds from love for God, described under the names "Dominionism", "Fascism", "Naziism". Furthermore, I find that the idea of "dominion" - borrowed though it is from Holy Scripture - has obtained a special, and alien academic meaning, that is too difficult for me to understand. So, I don't know how to clear up the misunderstanding of it as it is applied to me and to what I am doing. It takes a lot of patience to hear the legitimate alarm, and sometimes the difficulty of this effort leaves me with the dangerous illusion that either, I am the only one who gets it, or I'm the only one who doesn't get it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
See my comment at the bottom: using "Holy Scripture" as opposed to bible clearly shows a POV. •Jim62sch• 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes; it does show POV. But it is an appropriate term for describing or explaining that POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Alas, I couldn't readily find any other neologism to make a comparison to. I still have that Chris Hedges book title in the back of my mind. --LC 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


In politics, there is always a reductionist approach to "label" viewpoints in a manner that is useful to opponents of such viewpoints. This happens across in all politically charged arguments. In Wikipedia we are neither defending these "labels" nor perpetuating their use. What our readers expect is that we describe significant opinions regardless if these are true, good, bad, obnoxious, or otherwise. If a reader comes across the term "dominionism" (or pro-life, pro-choice, islamofascist or any other such term, for example), he/she will expect to be able to understand what this term means, who uses it, and in which contexts. Let's do that here: think of the reader. It is not that difficult, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I will follow your lead, then; because in this case I find it very difficult indeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No thanks... I am no leader and I need no followers... :). Actually I do not claim expertise in this subject, just picked my curiosity a while ago and looked into it. What needs to be done is simple: "According to X, dominionism is this and that, which is disputed by Y who asserts that dominionism is that and the other; several authors disagree with these two opposing viewpoints asserting instead that dominionism is this and the other when used in context X an context B". That is why I say it is not difficult: get published sources, find significant viewpoints, attribute these viewpoints to these that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the humility - but you did improve the lead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(ri) So long as everything is clearly delineated, and POV wording (using "claim" in one instance, "assert" in the other) that is precisely what what I have wanted to see. •Jim62sch• 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Nation

Back to the Soft Dominionism section, which still needs a lot of work. What is currently posted goes off on a tangent about America not being a Christian nation. This is clearly promoting a particular POV. If it is going to remain, arguments that America is a Christian nation should also be presented. But again, it seems to me that the focus here is too narrowly American in any case. Frjohnwhiteford 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Too narrowly American? America is the radix argumentorum in this case. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)