Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:19, 25 October 2006

Please post all new messages at the bottom of the page!

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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.

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.

]--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 Misplaced Pages: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 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of entry that makes the entire Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 as a political force" and "conflate state and ." 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

• The Dominionist (dominionism defined by a dominionist)

-- 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 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 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."

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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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:

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 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 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 , 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." --Pravknight 21:48, 7 September 2006 (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. 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.

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.

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."

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)

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."

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.'" 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."