Dominionist, are you? Welcome to your home and native land
| August 23, 2011 | Posted by O'Leary under Culture, Intelligent Design, News |
Shut up. You'll get used to it.
Have a seat, fill out this form, we love ya. (Explain later.)
Here’s Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson’s thoughts on the invention of the “Dominionist” cult, that – supposedly – molded ID-friendly Michele Bachman and PR only ID-friendly Rick Perry, both US prez hopefuls:
As befits a shadowy religious sect, its followers go under a variety of names: Reconstructionists. Theonomists. The New Apostolic Reformation. Republicans. All apparently share a belief, in Goldberg’s words, that “Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions.”
“Shadowy” isn’t actually the right word. It should be “fleeting.”
In the mid-90s, when I could take time from book editing, I wrote for the Christian press in Canada. A political scientist whose work I followed wrote a column about a “Reconstructionist” movement in the States, aimed at theocracy. He mentioned it for the current events record; his main concern was and is real live theocracies. Stuff that matters. Few thought the “reconstructionist” movement was going anywhere or that it merited much discussion.
And it didn’t go anywhere. Had it really grown, many traditional Christians would have been discussing it. Few were. For rational people, that’s a clue.
But some Americans to this day seem to really need to believe it exists. I’ve never figured out why, but that didn’t matter until those people’s nightmares started to get air time across North America. Gerson explains, with respect to the pseudo-evidence for the cult’s existence,
If this kind of attack sounds familiar, it should. It is not just an argument but a style of argument. Critics of a public figure take a marginal association and turn it into a gnostic insight — an interpretive key that opens all doors.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Some need the Dominionist cult to exist, and for them it does, and always will exist, and will explain pretty much anything. Especially what it doesn’t. That’s the most important part.
Including the persistent belief among human beings that there is design in the universe.
(Note: If they had been called “Dominionists” in Canada, people would assume that they wanted to restore the popularity of the country’s original name: Dominion of Canada, as on the old maps.)
Oh yes, about that form: It’s a notice of intention to immigrate to … check the graphic and see if you can figure out where. Hint: It’s not Thailand.
Hat tip: Five Feet of Fury, who calls Dominionism “A brief history of all those ever-looming American ‘theocracies’ that never actually happened.”
10 Responses to Dominionist, are you? Welcome to your home and native land
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Looks like projection to me. It’s been obvious for some time that some would like nothing better than to forcibly ban Christianity. Add the assumption that others are like-minded on the use of force to settle philsophical issues, and you get the belief that there is at least a cadre of Christians plotting a theocracy.
It goes without saying that the only planned theocracy for which there is any evidence whatsoever is Islamic (indeed, that creed preaches world domination by force whenever there are no Westerners present to hear). But since Darwinism and political correctness seem to go hand-in-hand, that elephant in the ballroom must be ignored.
Projection; yes.
Also, the need to ban Christianity stems from Christianity’s influence on culture. Many see it as a negative influence; however, even the most disagreeable Christian sects have contributed positively to culture from building hospitals and charitable organizations in the name of Christ. Also, many American universities and colleges were founded by church people.
But the idea that Christians want to create a theocracy runs counter to Christian teaching found in scripture. The types of influences Christians are to have on culture are just the sorts of things mentioned above.
You all put too much trust in politicians.
Perry will be fine if the right ideas come to dominate. Michele will fail if they don’t.
Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance.
–Heinrich Heine
Sorry, wrong thread. Too many tabs open
Actually, surprisingly relevant.
The issue is sound thinking and sound leadership with sound counsel, in a transparent, accountable and civil system of government.
Heine works for all occasions.
Thanks, KF
Yup
That prophecy of his, in 1834, in Religion and Philosophy in Germany, chills my bones to this day:
G
Eagles in the air and lions in African deserts? Right down to the right symbols!
If Jews were said to be trying to take control on earthly institutions it would be roar and a rage against even a shadow of such sediment.
Whats the physics here? Can or can not “groups” be accused to be up to no good?
In a democracy its fair and square for anyone too try to take control with their agendas anything. As long as its within the rules of democracy and law.
In evangelical circles there is often talk of the need to get involved and overthrow anti-Christian agendas in the establishment.
its possible, as anything in ideas is possible, that small obscure folks go further and say christians should control these institutions as a purpose of identity.
Anyways it all comes down to the rules of public affairs.
Politics, they say, rewards those who get involved.
Can everybody make accusations about “groups’ agendas to take control/use institutions?
I have a list myself but forbear.
It does have a certain stunning relevance, doesn’t it?