It think Dominionists must be regarded the way Islam regards Bin Laden-esque jihadists...as the extremists crackpots they are. Is there any sense of how many people characterize themselves as Dominionist?
Posted by Roy Batty at May 21, 2006 04:14 AMSully, when not writing about the joys of barebacking, or equating HIV/AIDS with diabetes, is rather consumed with Christianity in its various forms. I always thought his "mummy" was probably quite like the Piper Laurie character in the movie 'Carrie.'
Posted by Christopher at May 21, 2006 04:24 AMTh lft hs bsd th Cnstttn lngr thn gnrtn fr th sk f cvtsnss nd prvrsn, hghr mrls thn dfndng r cvlztn frm brbrns spps.
[Editor: ignore=off]I live in Pastor Ted's back yard (well, not quite, but a few miles away)
Yes, he wants Christians in politics, he wants them up-front and pushing it. I've heard him preach that crap.
He was even making noise about running for congress this year. He's backed off that.
I just have to wonder though, does his flock support all his views? I'm too afraid to go to that freak show to find out.
These very well-to-do and insular Christianists saw Pastor Ted's worse side last year when he slammed a poor mother - a member of his own church - who killed her children and committed suicide while her life fell apart in their midst. He took some well-deserved heat.
He's power hungry and greedy, just like another of our neighbors here: Mullah Dobson.
Their massive hypocrisy and failure as Christians must be exposed for all to see.
Posted by Zappatero at May 21, 2006 05:18 AMThere is a guy named Rick Miesel who has a very detailed webpage (Biblical Discernment Ministries) explaining at length Dominion Theology and he invites letter writers to his personal email. He makes a very elaborate and detailed narrative of his point of view. He is sincere in his beliefs. I do not share them, but I don't think he should be attacked for offering an explanation of what he thinks about the divisions among Christian types.
What I walk away with after reading his work (and others) goes to Pessimist's point. It's very easy to stereotype those who disagree with you, but it's hard to see the very real distinctions among them. Dominionists are not the Christians I grew up with in the South, but I have always known they were there. And like Miesel's typologies, they have very arcane and detailed distinctions which apparently matter greatly to them. We might think of it as the same sort of differences among Jews and among various forms of Islam. Leave them alone long enough and they'll argue about who is right and might even get around to killing one another too. I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but I do think strongly held beliefs have led to precisely the kind of zealotry which creates death by-and-for religious belief.
Christians do not talk much among themselves across these fault lines of belief. They have had (in this country) the time to practice restraint and tolerance as instructed by the Constitution. Remove that and you usher in chaos. Need I say that is precisely what you see going on now?
Christians who feel the need to emulate Jesus daily are quite different from those who feel the need to execute their respective catechisms. I don't notice them very much cause they usually don't talk too much or too loud. I am not one of them either--but if I had to choose between them and the loud and obnoxious testifiers, I'd choose the former. It's sorta like the folks who prefer to keep their phone conversations private and secluded, and those who blather loudly anywere on cellphones as though everybody should notice and care about their conversations. Conversations with a personal God are quire different from the public gesture of righteousness and self-importance.
Posted by simplot at May 21, 2006 05:35 AMStick with Dominionist over Christianist. All Christians are "Christianists" of some sort, but not all are dominionists. Dominionists feel God has granted them all sorts of things and, as a term, it captures perfectly the Christian Right's politics on the environment, personal liberties, empire and government. It is up to us to brand these extremists and anyone can understand the harmonic resonances between dominion and power, extremism, eliminationism, control and any number of words our democracy could do without.
Posted by andy at May 21, 2006 06:10 AM"Dominionist" is too obscure. A few of the more worldly types who've lived close to our northern border will think you're talking about some group of Canadians. Other people willjust seem puzzled--this may create an opportunity to inform, it also can degenerate into a debate about teh ter. Something like "neo-Christian" or "pseudo-Christian" fits these people better.
Posted by Rich at May 21, 2006 06:35 AMYou don't even scratch the surface of what these people want.
No prisons. Anyone charged with a crime by another person, any person, goes in front of priests who weigh the charges. There are only 4 possibilities. Found not guilty. Found guilty and sentenced to death by stoning. Found guilty and sentenced to death by burning. Found guilty and made a slave.
Slavery is accepted and people can become your slave and you get all of their property if you charge them with a crime.
No prisons. All crimes are punishable by death or enslavement.
Real property reverts to the original owner after 50 years (they fucked themselves on this one. It'll all go back to the Indians).
Women will be stoned to death for adultery.
A man can have his wife stoned to death or burned if she disobeys him.
A man can have his children stoned or burned to death, or made slaves, if they disobey or disrespect him.
You really need to dig deep to discover what these assholes are trying to do, and the impact they are having on America. They are more dangerous than any external threat America faces. Busch is just the tip of iceberg.
Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, "unchastity before marriage."
According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, "along with those who advised them to abort their children."
Punishments for non-capital crimes generally involve whipping, restitution in the form of indentured servitude, or slavery. Prisons would likely be only temporary holding tanks, prior to imposition of the actual sentence.
This thinking and these fucks are the reason most third world countires have more liberal laws than us. America is changing, and these people are the reason why it's changing in such a negative way.
And what happens if these people come to power? They already have, and the result is what you see.
No. They are totalitarians, and it is not permissible to describe them in any other way.
Niewert himself, although he has done much good work, appears to subscribe to the false and misleading distinction between "left" and "right" totalitarianisms. Totalitarianism is always and everywhere the same; the local differences of terminology and pseudo-philosophy are not significant. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with charismatic leader figures; it is civil war by other means. It is always the authentic expression of some substantial faction within a society. This is what no one wants to face up to: the people are the problem. Democracy is the problem. Democracy inevitably decays into totalitarianism. If you are serious about preventing totalitarianism, you must first prevent democracy.
Posted by Frank Wilhoit at May 21, 2006 10:32 AMHistory shows the results of Dominionist behavior, which I suppose is the reason why some people turn a blind eye to it. The Crusades were a confluence of Christian zealotry with the ambitions of the Church and European monarchs, all cloaked with the righteousness of God. This dubious mission dissolved into slaughter and corruption. Go figure.
Posted by DW at May 21, 2006 11:10 AMWhat Sullivan and his hypocrite fellow traveler in self-deception (or is it just lying?), Christopher Hitchens cant bring themselves to publicly admit is that the neocons need the conservatives who need the religious right who need the dominionists. Otherwise, no PNAC "regime change" jack off, no huge tax-breaks for the rich, no sweeping deregulation, no gay marriage amendments, no settlement funding, no idiotic flag burning/ school prayer red herrings etc. In other words, theres no viable right without the religious right. For people like Sullivan and Hitchens to try to claim otherwise is a testament to a degree of dishonesty/stupidity that almost defies description.
Posted by jondee at May 21, 2006 12:12 PMJesus Christ said, "What profits a man, though he gain the whole world, yet loses his soul."
He was describing a monopolist. He was describing a Domininist. He was describing all orthodox conservatives, no matter what religion.
If one lives in any society alongside a monopolist religious conservative, then you can bet that they will try to dominate, to monopolize, to censor, to wage a culture war against all other citizens in that society.
And Jesus Christ, in just this one statement, indicates that all those religious, monopolistic-mindset conservatives, seeking world-, or national-, or neighborhood-domination, end up losing their souls.
And the monopolists, at least in their minds, are never wrong. Which means that all the "righeous" monopolists who have ever walked the earth have lost their souls in the process of trying to dominate everyone else.
This is why our liberal democracy is in such grave danger. All the monopolists are hell-bent on forcing all U.S. citizens to bow to their monopolistic agenda. And they will try every ploy, trick, sneak-attack, deception, or whatever, to achieve their nefarious goal. They can't help it. They really don't know what they are doing. They've sold their souls, you see.
This is a long read, but shows the current state and origins of dominionists. www.theocracywatch.com
Peace
Posted by Tap, tap, Is this thing on? at May 23, 2006 10:41 AMMy mistake, that should be www.theocracywatch.ORG
Sorry bout that. Preview twice, post once.
Posted by Tap, tap, Is this thing on? at May 23, 2006 10:43 AMTheocracywatch isnt a very good organisation imo. Theyre right on some stuff but they try to mix in leftist economics too and thats not what dominionism is about. You can be a capitalist and not be a dominionist; in fact, you can be a capitalist, for 'small govt', etc... and oppose dominionism just as much as liberals do. But theocracywatch tries to score political points by conflating the two.
I think this is a pretty fringe group and probably a waste of time to worry too much about; theyll never gain power. But the mainstream religious right can and is. Theyre not as extreme, but theyre bad enough, and we really do need to be worried about them.
Posted by Jonesy at May 24, 2006 12:02 AM