Talk:Dominionism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Protected

I have protected the article. When consensus us found, come find me and I'll unprotect. Protection will expire in one week automatically. Mercury 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked over the content dispute itself, however, are the parties interested in mediation? I'm available. Mercury 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit War? Geez, I think we would have worked this out in a few hours. We are in the middle of discussing matters. Hardly time for mediation. Pardon the pun, but you may have jumped the gun.--Cberlet 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have not jumped gun. The protection stays for a few hours then. When you work it out, let me know or request unprotection. Edit summaries are not the proper place to have discussion. Mercury 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that one editor deleting whole sections, other editors trying to eliminate this and that, and other editors reverting those edits constitutes edit-warring. There was no working this out "in a few hours." Thanks Mercury for handling this situation quickly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, the final count is: Guettarda 3, Orangemarlin 3, BlueMoonlet 3, FeloniousMonk 2, Cberlet 2, Mike Doughney 1. One of my reverts was followed by an attempt to improve the text that had been deleted, and another was to repair the reference list which had been damaged by the previous edit (and is now back in that state, by the way). I'm sure others felt their actions justified as well. In any case, it certainly qualifies as an edit war, and Mercury's action was entirely justified. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So BlueMoonlet we're counting? Nice uncivil comment by you. Please don't stand on your high horse any longer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how you are interpreting anything I said as uncivil. Please explain. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer of mediation. I don't think it's needed as of right now, but it might be needed soon. Revolutionaryluddite 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH?

Does the section violate WP:SYNTH? Maybe--maybe not. All sorts of articles have text that summarizes existing published sources. Several of the authors cited in the entry point out there are different definitions of the term. Several of the authors cited in the entry are critical of how some other authors use the term. To me a real encyclopedia does, in fact, help readers by exploring this sorts of issues -- and I find the discussion of the different uses of the term very useful. I think the text can be fixed. I think fixing the text makes more sense that simply flagging everything or deleting it all.--Cberlet 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the idea of just replacing all the citations with 'fact' tags and all the personal attacks started, but the original point made in objection was that the section didn't have any real secondary sources-- it was basically just a list of links to using the term dominionist in the popular media way rather than the religously scholarly way. I don't think it violated WP:SYN, but I think it needed more sources. I also agree with you that the section shouldn't just be removed wholesale without the oppourtinity given for revision.Revolutionaryluddite 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The section drew a conclusion that Hedges et al misused/misapplied the term and relied solely on their own articles, primary sources, to support it. That's the very defiinition of synthesis according to WP:SYNTH. Until notable and neutral reliable sources are provided that Hedges, Yurica, etc are misusing or misapplying the term, it's not going back into the article because barring such sources it remains original research. Furthermore, there are far more popular sources that state and imply that Hedges' and Yurica's use of the term is the common usage, something that will need to be included in the intro regardless of the outcome of the section in question. FeloniousMonk 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My first action after you raised this issue was to remove the problematic phrases that cast aspersions on the usage of Hedges et al. At that time I thought the point you've just made was quite valid and I commended you for making it. However, the version we've been bandying about since then does not have the problem you are raising. It no longer comes anywhere close to characterizing this usage as misuse or misapplication, but just states how they use the term in a way that I have a hard time believing is controversial. The point could perhaps be supplemented with a few direct quotes, which might alleviate your SYNTH concerns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing that there are three main usages for the term "Dominionism"?

1. Dominion Theology such as Christian Reconstructionism
2. A tendency within conservative Christian evangelicalism and apocalyptic Catholic conservatism toward a type of Christian Nationalism often involving elements of theocratic political power
3. The primary ideology, methodology and goals of the Christian Right in general

Does anyone dispute that there is no significant scholarly support for the latter usage?

If no dispute, then showing the reader which authors use which usage is useful and appropriate, and we just need to tinker with the text. We already cite citics of usages #2 and #3 in the text, and we can add cites pro and con if they are found in reputable published sources.--Cberlet 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I always thought #2 was the official definition (such as there is one) of Dominionism. As for #3, there are Christians who may be right wing (say they believe in Republican attitudes towards taxation) but socially liberal. I think trying to expand the usage is POV problem. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thing, it is not up to us to declare that the reputable published sources that claim #3 is the proper definition for "Dominionism" are wrong. I think they are wrong, you think they are wrong, but how do we explore all three usages on this entry page in an NPOV way? That's what we need to do. It is not our POV that is the problem, it is that three usages are current.--Cberlet 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is how one page deals with the issue of sourcing a list: Far Right--Cberlet 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one disagrees with Cberlet, can we unprotect the page and let him fix it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to be a lot more proactive in seeking opinions than that. Frankly, I don't spend a lot of time on discussions of contentious articles, because it is a big waste of time. Arguments tend to be "blah blah" "no, blah blah" "yes blah blah". Who cares? So if you're going to unilaterally decide to do one thing or another, based on a grand total of three opinions, you're going to end up in another edit war. Go seek opinions from most editors like me who edit the article but could care less about these tendentious and dull talk pages (not that I think this one is, it's just they're all sounding the same, probably a serious weakness of Wikipedia). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is rather mind-boggling. Yes, editing WP in a way that gets things right is hard work. If a person doesn't care enough to discuss issues with other editors and seek consensus, then that person should not be editing the page. Consensus is based on the opinions of all who care to join the conversation -- number is irrelevant. It's not my job to canvass, especially for people who have already participated in this conversation.

Anyway, you're here now. Why don't you enlighten us with your opinion on the matter at hand, if you wish to have it considered? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet has put a tremedous amount of energy into this page and related pages, and it has improved greatly. Even when I disagree with BlueMoonlet I think that the process and edits have attempted to be fair, and deserves a bit more respect. Cberlet (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant quote

The quote from George Grant, recently added by Jim62sch, is a fine one and deserves to be in the article. However, I contend that it pertains only to one form of Dominionism (I added two sources labeling Grant a Reconstructionist), and thus does not belong in the intro. Placing it in the intro leaves the impression that everyone on the list is out for "World conquest," which is a remarkable claim to say the least. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a very good quote. I'm uncomfortable with having it in the intro section. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Love the quote, but Grant is representative of only the most militant wing of dominionism. Not fodder for the intro.--Cberlet (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer

Here's an interview with Francis Schaeffer's son which will be of interest to contributors here on Schaeffer and the Christian Right. A quote:

JW: He was talking about real life, not just pie-in-the-sky.

FS: That’s right. And I’m hoping that my book, aside from humanizing dad, will also redeem his reputation as someone who was known for something better than simply being a leader in the Religious Right. He really was known as a thinker.

JW: Are you saying that Francis Schaeffer wouldn’t be part of the Christian Right?

FS: Yes. He has been used by people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others to give some respectability to points of view that really were not his. What made my dad’s heart beat fastest was talking about people’s philosophical presuppositions and how they lived. He wanted to put people’s lives back together again, people who had problems. The politicized view of him is illegitimate.

JW: But you have to admit that your father helped change the face of evangelical fundamentalism. Before then, no one was involved. Then he did Whatever Happened to the Human Race?''', which was the beginning of Christian Protestantism’s involvement in the abortion issue. Thus, evangelical opposition to abortion was really started with your father.

FS: That’s right.

JW: In fact, you and your dad spearheaded all that. You changed the face of evangelical Christianity.

FS: I talk about some of that in the book. But I can’t say that for sure.

JW: I can say it.

FS: What I can say is that there would not have been a Religious Right as it became known, including the make-up of the Republican Party, without the involvement of my dad, myself, Dr. C. Everett Koop, you and those of us who were in on all this at the very beginning. My book discusses some of the unintended consequences. My father never would have pictured a day when his work would help lay a foundation for the anti-gay, anti-homosexual campaign being carried out by people like James Dobson and others. Those were not his issues. They were not his concerns. Dad was very narrowly focused. The issues that got him, me and people like you involved were very narrowly focused. And it was Roe v. Wade and all the fallout that came from that court decision.

--Flex (talk/contribs) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to dominionism

The polar opposite of dominionism is secular humanism, a tendency among liberals and atheists ... The parallels are chilling. Or is this just me putting 2 and 2 together (WP:OR)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Mike Doughney (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian Flag

I appreciate User:Eleland adding some refs after my request. What I see here is the same partisan view of the topic (exemplified by Moser of Rolling Stone) that not everyone agrees with, and that this article is trying to portray in its proper context. To put the Christian flag at the top of the article is to assume that this view of Dominionism is correct. However, I have no problem with including it at the section "Persons and organizations described as dominionist", where this viewpoint is given free rein, and I'll even expand the caption somewhat. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Christian flag has no relevance to Dominionism, as is clearly shown by the article on the flag. It has been used by a wide variety of Christian denominations, as has the pledge. The pledge was used in Sunday School and Vacation Bible School in the Southern Baptist Church at least 40 years ago. The use of the flag and the caption demonstrate a general disregard for an NPOV. Holford (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research in need of reliable secondary sources, or deletion

The following text cites two primary sources:

"They cite the Treaty with Tripoli (1796) passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," and George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas, in which Washington defended religious freedom for Jews ("For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance")."

The claim that "they cite..." these sources is original research. These sources say nothing about who cites them, why, or how these sources would relate to the subject of this article. Either reliable secondary sources need to be cited that show that these sources are in fact used as claimed, or this text needs to be deleted. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After no one came forward with any secondary sources, I deleted the above text. Guettarda was reverted this deletion with the edit summary "That's ridiculous", but still we have no reliable secondary sources. I would encourage him to either come up with such sources that support the assertions made in the text, or to read WP:OR rather than engaging in knee-jerk reverts that violate WP policy. If you have reliable secondary sources, then of course, the text should stay. If you don't, it is ridiculous that anyone would argue to the contrary... if they are familiar with the policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent deletion, Frjohnwhiteford, was basic edit warring. The two texts are well known and often cited. This was a clear case of a POV deletion. Constructive and collaborative editing is not gaming the system by deleting material you dislike a few days after a cite request. Either wait longer or do the work yourself--finding cites in reputable published sources was easy. --Cberlet (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chip, I asked for the cites. I patiently waited for them. They were not forthcoming. I deleted the text, since it lacked such cites. You have now provided them, and I have no problem with the text as it now stands. I find it interesting that you claim that my deletion was POV pushing, because I clearly recall you deleting a portion of this same section on the same basis, in this edit. It is not my job to find sources for other people's edits, and I don't believe you waited long at all to make your deletion, nor did you bother taking the matter to the talk page first. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. I deleted text cited to an AOL personal home page. You deleted text cited to Yale University, and the Library of Congress, the latter of which included commentary that was clearly not "original research," and spoke to the issue. A weekend is hardly "patience." Seriously, you "doth protest too much, methinks...."--Cberlet (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The web page you deleted contained the actual text of the decision. The texts that I deleted were original texts. One of them also included some commentary, but not commentary that supported the assertions in the text. Now, you have provided texts that do, and that is fine. Citing original sources to support your own conclusions violates WP:OR regardless of the quality of the web site that re-produces the original source. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment on edit-warring, which is always bad. The Clarkson reference may go some way towards resolving Frjohn's complaint, but still I would prefer to delete that entire paragraph (not that I would do so without consensus) as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not one reference in that paragraph (with the possible exception of the Clarkson article that Cberlet just added) makes a connection between Jefferson's views and Dominionism. I have said before that there should be a page on Religion and politics in the United States, where all manner of "Christian nationalists" and "anti-disestablishmentarians" and the like can be properly discussed without applying labels rejected by those so labeled. This page should focus on the narrow topic of the term "Dominionism" and how it's used, and is no substitute for a general discussion of the former topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. What about the already existing Separation_of_church_and_state? Wouldn't the text fit there? Then we could just add a link stating that some critics see a problem concerning dominionism and church/state issues and link it. Or do you think there is enough content for a whole new page?--Cberlet (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to moving the text there. Another possibility is Christian right. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bush, Falwell, and theonomy

Here's a quote from a recent op-ed in The Washington Post that has some relevance here:

Yet didn't George Bush and other Republican politicians accept the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the U.S. government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists see as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the candidate attending this church lacked judgment and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

It is written by one of Bush's former speech writers (now a WaPo op-ed columnist), and in forming a comparison between Bush and Falwell vs. Barak Obama and his radical minister, it contains a rejection of some of the views dominionist conspiracy theorists attribute to the Christian Right. Perhaps it doesn't warrant inclusion here, but I'll leave that up to you all. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with Dominionism?--Cberlet (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the (rare) statements from a conservative rejecting theonomy. Journalists and commentators on the left seem to be more interested in it than those on the right, so I thought this might be useful here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it is original research.--Cberlet (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not OR, just primary source material. Use it as you wish, or don't. I was just making it available. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dominionism in nations other than the USA

Although 'Dominionism' is used to describe a specific political philosophy in the USA, I am relatively sure that this philosophy is not unique to the Unites States. However, I am not enough of an expert to expound further. More information about how Dominionism is different from other movements that try to base secular government on a specific religion such as the Islamic caliphate movement or the (former) strict Catholic laws of Ireland would be welcome. Saint Fnordius (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Palin indentified as Dominionist Domocracy Now!/Amy Goodman had an interview this week with a scholar named Kaplan (?) that identified S.Palin as a Dominionist who believes "we are living in the 'endtimes'".(Also as a former member of the minority Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist group. Please find and add citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC) First of all, how does believing - as many Christians do - that we are living in the "end times" maker her a "Dominionist?" Second, she is not and has never been a member of the AIP. That canard has been sufficiently debunked. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never encountered the term in a non-U.S. context. I submit that Jewish orthodoxy and Muslim Wahhabism are comparable, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

When did Wikipedia become a clearinghouse for any and all screwball conspiracy theories whose names aren't even found in dictionaries? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with this whole entry, I hardly know where to begin. First of all there's too much emphasis on Christianity; this linguistically stems from Genesis, which is shared by multiple religions, not just one. Further, that word is thought to have been a mistranslation- the original meaning probably closer to "stewardship". There's far too much emphasis on recent YouTubecentric chatter about very-recent fundamentalist notion of the word. Generally the content on the page is so narrow in scope as to utterly distort the true meaning of the term. This entry should have gotten no more than a D-, not a B. Personally, I'd give it an F because it almost entirely ignores the primary meaning in favor or a very narrow and trendy application of the word. And this is why so many people think wikipedia is a crock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.3.15 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

67.242.3.15, the article is about a movement within Christianity, hence the emphasis on Christianity. It has nothing to do with various meanings of the term or their religious or linguistic roots. Holford (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian nationalism redirect

I ended up here from a redirect from Christian nationalism, but this article doesn't seem to really discuss what I had expected. I was looking for information on Christian-nationalist politics of the ethno-national sort, especially in the late Ottoman empire and early 20th century Europe. For example, the "Christian nationalism" discussed here, here or here. Do we have an article on that topic under a different name? --Delirium (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We may be a bit lean on that kind of thing. Try Christianity and politics or Christian politics (index) or Religion and politics to see what already exists, but you may need to write a new article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Apartheid"

Was the National Party (1948-1994) in South Africa also dominionist (Christian Nationalism)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.7.77 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory?

There doesn't seem to be much mention of "dominionism" outside of small groups of people worried about "theocracies." 67.135.49.42 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the references in the article. There are lots of them. Are there any particular ones you are concerned about? --FOo (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other terminology" aka Christianism

Right now this article has an unsourced statement that "Some authors have used the terms 'Christianism' or 'Christianist' in place of 'dominionism.'" I've only ever seen "Christianism" applied to the Christian right in general. Since this has been in place forever it's not too much to ask for it to be removed if a source isn't added quickly.Prezbo (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really limited to conservative Christians?

Absolutely no mainstream or liberal Christians are dominionists? 64.184.247.114 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw the distinction between "mainstream" Christians and "conservative" or "liberal" Christians. It seems that you're conflating a denominational description with a political one. Thus that part of the question misses the point, akin to asking whether Dominionists shop at Walmart or Kmart. As to the other part of the question, whether [some/most/all] liberal Christians are Dominionists, that too seems a flawed question within the context of the article. The principle of res ipsa loquitor applies: If liberal Christians are Dominionists, the article ought to reflect that. If liberal Christians are not Dominionists, the article ought not to reflect that. We simply cannot manufacture facts to fit the question. If it's true, then put it in the article. Otherwise, it has no place here. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dominionism and violence

I recently undid an edit by 70.26.73.138. The edit inserted the text, "or in some more extreme cases violence".

The comment for Ip70's edit was "Ever hear of Randall Terry or Becky Fischer?"

In my case, I never heard of those two people so I read their articles:

• Randall Terry's article had the clause in its lede, "who promotes the killing of doctors who perform abortions". I believe that this violates WP:BLP because it was not supported by the nearest reference or by text elsewhere in the article. I removed the clause with this edit.
• Becky Fischer's article did not mention violence.

I could possibly believe that some dominionists seek to change government through violence; especially if the Christian Patriot movement is linked to it. However, this would be original research or synthesis on my part. Is there a reliable source that supports this assertion?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your actions were entirely appropriate, Kevinkor2. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Many abortion doctors have been killed by fundamentalist christians, as well as left-wing politicians. Also, would it be wrong to count the Klan as dominionists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.3.240 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominionism, Fascism, and Far-right

Hi,

I don't see any text in the body of the article that says "dominionism" is a form of "fascism". There is criticism of Chris Hedges that says that he links "dominionism" with "fascism", but unless it is mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article, I take it as being a straw-man argument against Hedges' views.

If there was text in the body of the article that said "dominionism" was a form of "fascism", I would accept that dominionism was far-right in the political spectrum. Otherwise, I don't see any text in the body of the article that says "dominionism" is a form of "fascism" or is "far-right".

Hmmm... maybe I'll read Hedges' article, and see if he has statements I could include in this article.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read a couple of webpages that say they contain statements from Hedges' article and book. I have numbered these statements and write conclusions based on them.

 

The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism

http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

An article by Chris Hedges that no major publication would print.

1. Rushdooney promoted an ideology that advocated violence to create the Christian state.

2. His ideology was the mirror image of Liberation Theology, which came into vogue at about the same time.

3. While the Liberation Theologians crammed the Bible into the box of Marxism, Rushdooney crammed it into the equally distorting box of classical fascism.

4. Dr. Tony Evans, the minister of a Dallas church and the founder of Promise Keepers, articulated Rushdooney's extremism in a more palatable form.

5. He called on believers, often during emotional gatherings at football stadiums, to commit to Christ and exercise power within the society as agents of Christ.

6. He also called for a Christian state.

7. But he did not advocate the return of slavery, as Rushdooney did, nor list a string of offenses such as adultery punishable by death, nor did he espouse the Nazi-like race theories.

8. It was through Evans, who was a spiritual mentor to George Bush that Dominionism came to dominate the politically active wing of the Christian Right.

 

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chris%20_Hedges/American_Fascists.html

A book.

9. Dominionism seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power.

10. It shares many prominent features with classical fascist movements, at least as [fascism] is defined by the scholar Robert 0. Paxton, who sees [it] as "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cultures of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

11. Dominionism, born out of a theology known as Christian reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith.

12. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians.

13. These believers have abandoned in this despair their trust and belief in the world of science, law and rationality.

14. They eschew personal choice and freedom.

15. They have replaced the world that has failed them with a new, glorious world filled with prophets and mystical signs.

16. They believe in a creator who performs miracles for them, speaks directly to them and guides their lives, as well as the destiny of America.

17. They are utopians who have found rigid, clearly defined moral edicts, rights and wrongs, to guide them in life and in politics.

18. And they are terrified of losing this new, mystical world of signs, wonders and moral certitude, of returning to the old world of despair.

19. They see criticism of their belief system, whether from scientists or judges, as vicious attempts by Satan to lure them back into the morass.

20. The split in America, rather than simply economic, is between those who embrace reason, who function in the real world of cause and effect, and those who, numbed by isolation and despair, now seek meaning in a mythical world of intuition, a world that is no longer reality-based, a world of magic.

 

My interpretation about what Hedges' says about Dominionism:

• from 7:
  • Rushdooney advocated the return of slavery. Evans doesn't.
  • Rushdooney listed a string of offenses such as adultery punishable by death. Evans doesn't.
  • Rushdooney espoused the Nazi-like race theories. Evans doesn't.
• from 10: Dominionism fits Paxton's definition of fascism:
  • preoccupation with national decline, humiliation, and/or victimhood
  • advocation of culture of unity, enery, purity
  • a mass-based party of committed nationalist activists
  • collaboration with conservative elites
  • abandon democratic liberties
  • pursues goals with violence and without ethical or legal restraints
  • has goals of cleansing the community within a nation and expansion of the nation's boundaries
• from 12:
  • Dominionists have a belief in magic/supernatural
    • from 13: abandoned their trust and belief in the world of science, law and rationality
    • from 16: believe in a God who performs miracles for them, speaks directly to them and guides their lives
    • from 16: believe in a God who guides the destiny of America
  • Dominionists adore leaders
  • Dominionists believe in the moral supremacy of a master race

 

Is my description of Chris Hedges' beliefs original research? Is it an accurate summary of material available in reliable sources?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding a page number for "page needed".

Under "Notes and references" 14, at the end of the reference line is "(page needed)". That needed page is 138.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AabywLOknbsC&q=%22Biblically+mandated%22#v=snippet&q=%22Biblically%20mandated%22&f=false

I don't know how to edit this and unfortunately don't at the moment have the time to learn how. If someone would like to do the edit, fine. Otherwise, fine also; I'll get around to it eventually. Regards, SueNami (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Question related to influence

Does anyone have any data related to the strength and structure of this movement. I have been hearing a lot about them recently, but in a land where it takes a billion dollars to run a Presidential campaign, I don't think these folks are very important actors, despite the fact that Rachel Maddow points to their influence in the Perry prayer rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.250.170 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dominion the concept, or the term?

This article is properly about the philosophical school of thought referred to as Dominionism. It is not, properly, just about whether that term is universally liked.

Recent edits seek to move the conversation away from the real subject of this article and more on perceptions of how the term is used. I lack the time to do more than simply revert it all, and that's clearly not appropriate here. While valid, relevant and properly sourced material has been (in my view unhelpfully) removed, new information has been offered, and deserves examination before wholesale deletion.

I urge more objective editors to take a hard look at this work. Uberhill 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I made these edits because recent discussion in the public square has resulted in a major increase in reliable sources (on the left as well as on the right) articulating the view that "Dominionism" is not a useful term for discussing the role of Christians in American politics. To continue discussing that topic in an article entitled "Dominionism" is implicitly to take sides in that dispute, and thus is inherently POV.

Of course I have no interest in stifling any discussion of important topics on WP, only that they are in the proper place. If you look carefully, you'll see that very little information was actually deleted from the article, though some things were moved around and/or condensed. The only exceptions were a couple paragraphs arguing over whether the U.S. really is a Christian nation (which ought to go somewhere else, perhaps Christian right or Religion and politics in the United States if those articles do not already sufficiently cover the topic) and a couple paragraphs on Reconstructionism and politics (which belong, if anywhere, in the article on Christian Reconstructionism). Everything else has been preserved.

By the way, "more objective" than whom?  :) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must still disagree. In Wikipedia, if you think the wrong term is being used, we discuss moving the article to a more appropriate title. Not shifting the article away from the subject. Debating the correct term to frame the article is for the talk page, here, not the article itself. Uberhill 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I might agree, except for three things. Firstly, this article was already largely about the history of the term, so moving the article to a different name would require removing (or at least strongly condensing) all such material. Secondly, given that the term has been much debated in the public square, I think an article on the term and its usage is useful and even necessary. Thirdly, there are already articles on Christian right and Religion and politics in the United States that are the proper forum for developing an exhaustive NPOV discussion of the topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" in lead

I don't think it's appropriate to include the "conspiracy theory" language in the lead section of this article. While the material is sourced (and is appropriately used in the article body), it's only one writer's opinion, and placing that opinion in the lead section implies Wikipedia's endorsement. I'm not sure why Pierce's opinion is any more valid than those of Berlet and Diamond, both of whom argue that the term is useful and meaningful. (Diamond acknowledges the conspiratorial tone of some liberal commentary on the Christian Right, and Berlet argues that the term "dominionism" has been used too broadly, but neither would agree that the use of the term "dominionism" is tantamount to belief in a conspiracy theory.)

I think that using this highly loaded term in the article lead places undue weight on Pierce's opinion. That view can and should be reflected in the article body, but not placed unchallenged in its lead.

If the "conspiracy theory" language is kept, it should be explicitly attributed to Pierce in the text; but I think it would be better to remove the sentence entirely. In fact, I'll be WP:BOLD and do that now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. Though Pierce is hardly the only person to express this viewpoint, I have added a different quote that is hopefully better. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Douthat quote is definitely better, as it doesn't come down on one side or the other as to the utility of the term... though in the source, that quote is linked to Pierce's column, I don't think that affects the reader unduly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"almost exclusively used by liberal journalists and bloggers"

This is similar to the concerns raised in the section above: even though it's sourced, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to include the claim that he term is "almost exclusively used by liberal journalists and bloggers" in the lead section. Although Carter isn't the only source that makes this claim, it's just as easy to find equally reliable sources (mostly liberal ones, to be sure) which dispute it (examples here, here, here and here). The question of the term's legitimacy is itself disputed (as well illustrated by the Ross Douthat quote that now finishes that sentence), and I think that if we say in the lead that "this term is used only by liberals" we implicitly come down on the conservative side of that legitimacy dispute. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but perhaps it would serve NPOV better if we were to say something like "Conservative critics maintain that the term is used almost exclusively by liberal journalists and bloggers, a claim which those journalists and bloggers in turn dispute"? That's a bit clunky, though. Anyone got a better suggestion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I could be incorrect, but my impression when researching liberal blog sources for "Christianism" (some years ago) was at one time Dominionism was the term used inside the movement. I seem to remember seeing this on 60 Minutes or another TV news program. It's possible the terminology was later found unworkable and was changed. It's also possible my memory is faulty. I'll look back at my sources. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Josiah, the sources you cite are mostly criticizing Miller and others on the general question of whether theocracy is really a threat, not on the question you cited of whether anyone other than liberal journalists and bloggers uses the term. To the extent that they do rebut the latter claim, they cite examples of conservatives speaking against Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism (or the New Apostolic Reformation, which with its predecessor Kingdom Now Theology seems to be a Pentecostal variant of much the same thing).

Josiah and Buster, the article already clearly explains that there is indeed a radial fringe movement known as Dominion Theology or Reconstructionism that can indeed be described as theocratic. The word "dominionism" is sometimes applied to this movement, but (as the article says) "this usage is not controversial." The usage of Diamond and Berlet and their followers is quite different. At the heart of this usage of the term lies a charge that Reconstructionists and the broader Christian right are part and parcel of the same thing, differing only in intensity, and this is the part that is highly problematic. While you may find conservative Christians using the word "dominionist" to criticize Reconstructionists or to respond to liberal use of the term, I do not know of any example of conservative Christians referring to themselves as dominionists. If you know of such an example, it would be interesting to see. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that nobody self-identifies as a dominionist. But that doesn't mean that the term is used only by liberals. If conservative Christian sources use the term "dominionist" to describe followers of Dominion Theology, Christian Reconstructionism or the NAR, then that belies Carter's claim. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dominionism" is an alternate, rather than the standard, term for Dominion Theology. While it is sometimes used with that meaning, in recent years it is much more often used with the Diamond/Berlet meaning. Carter's statement that "there is no 'school of thought' known as 'dominionism'" is not belied by the existence of Dominion Theology, because that is clearly not what he meant (he is clearly aware of Rushdoony's movement, as can be seen from a comment he left on his own article: click here and text-search for "8.10.2011 | 11:40am").

Independent of this issue, I have been thinking that it would be good to beef up the Intro somewhat, if we can agree on what to say. What if we gave more detail of what is meant by different usages, then modify the final pgh to read that the term in this sense is used almost exclusively by liberal journalists and bloggers. Might something along those lines be acceptable? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloggers are journalists. Using the phrase "...journalists and bloggers." pushes the POV that bloggers aren't "real" journalists. We should either lose the "and bloggers" or replace "journalists" with another term which does not include bloggers. Columnists? Rubiscous (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, removing the word "bloggers" would push the POV that bloggers are real journalists. Personally, I find that notion to be highly dubious at best (some "real journalists" have blogs, but that does not prove the converse). How about we reflect exactly what the source said? That would be the current wording. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

They are journalists. See Blog. Peppered with the words journal, journalism, journalist. And that source doesn't differentiate between journalists and bloggers at all. Rubiscous (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The source states "The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation." The source never mentions it is used by journalists at all but I'm assuming given the article's title is "A Journalism Lesson for the New Yorker" and references an article in the New Yorker it was safe to say that the term has been used by some journalists as well. Not all bloggers are journalists and not all journalists are bloggers. Legal precedents reflect this and while the issue is widely debated this isn’t the place for such a debate. PeRshGo (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be the place for such a debate, but the fact this article differentiates between the two makes it the place for such a debate. The easy way to make it not the place for such a debate is to change the wording. Rubiscous (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I have been a blogger, but I have never been a journalist. On the other hand, many bloggers are in fact serious and important journalists. My purpose in condensing the source as I did was to allow that, in fact, "liberal blogs and websites" do in fact amount to serious journalism, at least in some cases. On the other hand, a lot of the fora in which this term gets used are in fact blogs and websites, as the source says, so I think it's important to keep a word in there to that effect.

Rubiscous, it seems that the crux of your objection is a sense that the compound use of the words "bloggers" and "journalists" somehow implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't believe that is at all the case. The words complement each other in this usage, and do indeed sometimes describe the same person. Does that help with your concern? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A case of cultural crossed wires I think :) Here it does usually imply one is exclusive of the other. The article concerns a mostly American issue so I'll defer to your judgement judgment on this one. Rubiscous (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing bad sources shouldn't be controversial

PeRshGo's complaints about bias aside, I did remove both "conservative" and "liberal" sources, so the reason for his reversion of my edit is unclear. As far as I can tell, it seems to be a combination of WP:OWNership masquerading as WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" (which is, of course, itself a no-no) and simple WP:I just don't like it. Please explain, PeRshGo, why you feel that the personal opinions of various talking heads and self-publishers should we weighed equally with the scholarly opinions of experts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Practically this entire article is based on "non-expert op-eds/blogs and self-published material" and the term was basically invented for the purpose of controversy by "controversy-mongers". I agree with PeRshGo's comment that you might as well delete the article if that is the identified problem. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all - look at some of the sources! New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America from Baylor University Press, American Fascists from Free Press (Simon & Schuster's sociology and religion imprint), the Sarah Diamond books from various reputable publishers. These are experts in the subject publishing with reliable publishers.

Some of the sources that I left in aren't great either, but I left them in as examples of usage of the term - "here are right-wing Christians talking about dominion" on one hand, and "here are left-wing journalists using the term dominionism" on the other hand. (Eg. if the Andrew Sandlin stuff and the TheocracyWatch stuff was cited for anything but "see, they use the word"; if Coral Ridge were cited for anything but its own dominionist beliefs.) I probably wouldn't have much objection to removing a lot of those either! As I said in my edit summary, there's a lot more that could be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the work from Baylor is not relevant to this discussion, though it is one of a very few references in this article that is truly scholarly. As the article text clearly explains, that work uses the term in the conventional way (to refer to adherents of dominion theology, a tiny and radical minority), not in the Diamond/Hedges/etc. way of tarring the entire religious right.

Yes, Diamond has a Ph.D., and yes, she taught some sociology afterward, but she did not go on to a career as a scholar in sociology. I've never seen any evidence that she has published in reputable scholarly journals (on any topic, much less on her definition of "dominionism"), that any of her books were peer-reviewed, or that reputable sociologists in the intervening two decades have taken up her work in any significant way. Her subsequent career has been that of a journalist (a subject she has also taught).

Hedges is not a sociologist; he is a journalist, and a notably partisan one at that.

Now, none of this is to question the status of Diamond and Hedges as WP:RS. Certainly, they reach the threshold of reliability for being quoted in Wikipedia. However, let's please dispense with the idea that they are somehow more reputable than other journalists who have commented on the topic, that Harper's is somehow a more reputable source than First Things, or that non-peer-reviewed books are so much more reputable than magazines that only the former should be quoted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Academic book publishers (eg. Guilford) do have higher standards of editing than newspaper opinion sections, and Diamond's books have been favorably reviewed in a number of academic journals. But again: if there are sources I left in that you feel are unreliable, why not remove them or discuss them? I don't see how anyone gains from the "we can't remove all the unreliable sources, so let's put in as many as possible instead" philosophy.

The other point is that even if we decide to keep the Yurica, Douthat sources, etc., we can't derive "there was controversy" from "here are some op-eds criticizing the use of the term," and certainly we couldn't put it in the lead. Controversy would have to be reported in reliable, secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The source inclusion criterion reflects the nature of the article’s subject. The article is about a conspiracy theory proposed by opinion writers on one end of the political spectrum and debated by opinion writers on the other. There are subjects related to this article that are more fact oriented such as Dominion Theology but this entire article is about opinions on a movement that may or may not exist depending on the individual author’s opinion. PeRshGo (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Guilford's credits in this article include works by Diamond and Berlet. Those are two people who do have at least something in the way of credentials, but both of them have (as far as I know) exceedingly little in the way of citations or other indicators of respect or influence among sociologists.

If you want to limit the sources in this article to things that are at least halfway-reputable in the way of scholarship, Diamond and Berlet are pretty much all there is. What you have then, I think, is something very close to WP:FRINGE. Quoting from that guideline, "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." I think that is basically the case here. If the only people to write about Dominionism by this definition were Diamond and Berlet, it would never have been notable enough for an article. But their work was taken up by liberal journalists, who have more recently started to be rebutted by conservative journalists, and thus we have the article as it stands today.

In short, this is an article about a partisan argument, not about a respectable scientific paradigm. When seen in that light, it's not clear to me that any of the sources are particularly unreliable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would be very interested to see favorable reviews of Diamond's work by actual reputable sociologists.

Dominionist Umbrella:

Removed from the Article as "Unsourced Personal Comment"

Dominionist Umbrella:
You cannot admit to a desire for a Christian America Amendment to the US Constitution and Not be in one of several persuasions under the Dominionist Umbrella.

Such a removal device is probably justified in 90+% of the time; however, for the balance it constitutes censorship. For example, if the "Unsourced Personal Comment" was that Roman Catholics believe that two Roman Catholics married only (& validly) by a Justice of the Peace are engaging in sexual sin, the "Personal Comment" would be removed . . . . and there would be no clue left that military marriages can occur in precisely the circumstance described WITHOUT ANY SIN!!! . . . but the Wikipedia censors would be happy, because those nasty 100% always incorrect "unsourced personal comments" had been removed. . . . Do you anal-retentative editors really believe that the Roman Catholic Church would document exceptions to its "Civil Married Catholics are by definition in a sinful relationship" position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.242.44 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012

I recommend you read Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources. The example you cite about Catholic marriage practices would, if true, be verifiable by citing reliable sources (which are not limited to sources coming from the church itself), in which case the text would be included. The text you added to this article, as far as I can tell, is not so. However, I am quite willing to discuss the topic further if you provide sources for the text you wish to add. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"In addition to private Christian schooling, Christian home schooling is one of the primary avenues of teaching Dominionism and Christian theocracy. The Christian home school movement is led by the national Home School Legal Defense Association. Even otherwise seemingly-respectful Christian home school organizations are actively advocating theocratic views. For example, the Georgia Home Education Association (GHEA) headlined Reconstructionist founder Gary Demar at their 2007 annual conference. Note the many homeschool-related entities listed below. For more information, read 'Turning Our Children Into God's Warriors.'" (Source: http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.242.44 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the relationship between Christian Reconstructionists and the larger community of conservative Christians is already discussed. Furthermore, blogs are not generally considered to be reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

While the body of the article contains valuable information, the lead section describes Dominionism merely as a pejorative, not a phenomenon - "Dominionism is a term used to describe...". It also implies denial of a possible phenomenon that usage of the term attempts to convey- "...that are believed to conspire...".

The lead section also implies that merely being a journalist or blogger makes a source untrustworthy. "...the term is almost exclusively used by journalists and bloggers, and there is an ongoing debate about the usefulness of the term."

Reference to controversy surrounding the subject should be reserved for a separate subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly cyborg (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It would indeed be POV to describe the term as pejorative, but you'll notice that that word does not appear in the article. Even more importantly, it would be equally POV to describe the term as legitimate. The article endeavors to steer between these two pitfalls and to describe the debate about the term's appropriateness. If you want a discussion of religion and politics in the United States, we have other articles about that. This article is about the word itself and how people have used it.

Regarding "journalists and bloggers", again the article is describing and not judging. I hope you would agree that journalists, trustworthy as they are, are not as trustworthy as academic scholars, and the quote is partly meant to note that the latter have said very little on this topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)