Future Prospects For Dominionism
Jonathan Rowe on Aug 19th 2007
I take a moderate view on Dominionism. One the one hand there is the view of ordinary religious conservatives like Clayton Cramer who argue all warnings of such are paranoia:
If all the “dominionist Christians” in the United States got together and organized a coup d’etat, there wouldn’t be enough of them to take over Horseshoe Bend. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never met one. The only place that I have ever seen a “dominionist Christian” is being interviewed on some Bill Moyers documentary.
Then there are folks like Bill Moyers and Michelle Goldberg who argue that, if we don’t keep our guard up, we are on the verge of a Dominionist theocracy.
My opinion is that more Dominionists exist than for what Cramer et al. give credit. They do have strong influence in religious right and Republican circles; yet, that’s all they are, one of many competing political interests, who are often disappointed by conservative Republicans in general, and GW Bush in particular. D. James Kennedy’s Reclaiming America group and David Barton are probably the biggest influences in Domionism which have a Republican connection. Here is Kennedy at one of his conferences explaining his Dominionist agenda.
As I’ve noted many times on my blogs, I think Barton and Kennedy are sadly mistaken on the history of America; they have nothing to reclaim because they didn’t “own” its Founding from 1776-1787. And further, I think religious passions in politics can be a dangerous thing, and as such I want to see them quelled.
Yet, Kennedy’s Reclaiming America group has closed its doors. And that makes me happy.
In short, they exist; those who are wary of the Christian Nationalist agenda are right to stay concerned. Yet, let’s not overestimate their threat. In politics, they are not exactly on the winning side of most of the issues about which they are concerned. And the future prospects for Dominionism seem presently, at best, dim.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
The facts on the ground are that evangelical Christianity over the past 30 years or so has dropped his historical theological hostility to Judaism, and indeed is probably more supportive of the state of Israel than American Jewry itself. (!)
“Jesus Christ” is not due to be inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance anytime soon, as pushing Trinitarianism in the public sphere would be a faux pas with their new Jewish friends.
We return to the mushy Judeo-Christianity (for lack of a better term) of the Founding; the religious right is in a defensive posture to retain even that much.
IMO those who do not oppose originalism in general are at least indirectly helping the Dominionists because the Dominionists’ version of originalism is that the USA was founded as a “Christian nation.” Originalism inevitably leads to attempts to distort and fabricate history.
Fearmongering about Dominionism has been used to attack the teaching or mention of any scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools. Fearmongering about the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Strategy” is a good example of this. Also, the Anti-Defamation League strongly opposes (1) the teaching or mention of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools and (2) attempts to link Darwin to Hitler, despite the fact that these things have little or nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The ADL went so far as to have Judge Jones as a speaker at a national executive committee meeting and Jewish groups have submitted amicus briefs opposing the teaching or mention of criticisms of Darwinism in public schools.
It is interesting that the “Kingdom Coming” website mentions “neo-Confederates.” One of the reasons for the attempts to censor Confederate flags and other Confederate symbols is that these symbols are often seen as representing conservative views on abortion, separation of church and state, gay rights, etc.. Even Confederate symbols in purely historical or educational contexts are under attack.
Though the possibility of a Dominionist coup is unlikely, IMO the fundies have succeeded in having a major bad influence in some areas, e.g. , federal funding for stem cell research, excessive US support for Israeli policies (none of the other 14 members of the UN Security Council voted in support of any of the USA’s last 40 vetoes of proposed resolutions directed at Israel).
Tom Van Dyke said,
>>>> The facts on the ground are that evangelical Christianity over the past 30 years or so has dropped his historical theological hostility to Judaism, and indeed is probably more supportive of the state of Israel than American Jewry itself. (!)
Yes — there is a recent news article about that –
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/17/jews.christians/index.html
>>>>> “Jesus Christ” is not due to be inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance anytime soon, as pushing Trinitarianism in the public sphere would be a faux pas with their new Jewish friends.
Oops — the end of my comment was cut off. Here it is —
Tom Van Dyke said,
>>>>> “Jesus Christ” is not due to be inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance anytime soon, as pushing Trinitarianism in the public sphere would be a faux pas with their new Jewish friends.
Your characterization of Goldberg isn’t terribly accurate. She’s explicitly said she doesn’t think we’re on the verge of theocracy, but we *might* end up with one if US history goes bad in the right way… say, we face a disaster that puts us in the position of post-WWI Germany. But then, maybe you didn’t mean to suggest more than that: the grammar of your sentence is a little weird (should that be “if we… we will be…” rather than “if we… we are…”?)
I was cut off again! It must be those arrows I was using. Sorry about that. Here it is again –
Tom Van Dyke said,
– “Jesus Christ” is not due to be inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance anytime soon, as pushing Trinitarianism in the public sphere would be a faux pas with their new Jewish friends. –
I disagree. From what I have seen, the fundies are not afraid of offending their “new Jewish friends.” The fundies know that extremist Jewish Zionists need them a lot more than vice-versa.
Seeing as the religious motivation behind that support is to help bring about the apocalypse and with it the total annihilation of Jews throughout the world, I’m not really sure you can call what they do “support”.
The fundamentalists support Israel about as much as a pusher supports an addict.
I think that the threat they pose is not of a fullblown theocracy, but of whittling away at the separation of church and state. This is a slow attack from both ends and in many places more liberal churches have taken the bait as well. One of the little discussed problems that, for a short time even hit my church, is political action alerts in church. My pastor put a kabosh on it, before I even had a chance to talk to him about it, but other members of the interfaith alliance I am a part of had more of a challenge, making their respective churches aware of the problems with this, including a few more liberally minded ones.
On the other end, you of course have the most egregious, the executive office fo faith based initiatives. Down to the grass-roots campaigns to amend state constitutions to combat marriage equality or any approximation thereof. Not to mention the never ending fight to keep faith out of public schools, especially the science classrooms.
I don’t fear full blown theocracy on it’s face, but a daresay that the chipping away at the separation of church and state is no less than an attempt to send us in that direction. Genuine theocrats might be a marginal fringe group, no question in my mind. However, they do have an agenda and they have done a damn fine job perpetuating it. They use moderate, non-theocratic Christians to move it forward. Every little bit of dogma, they manage to codify into law, supports their end-game. Unfortunately, far too few theists understand that every bit of “success” they have in this arena, not only leads us towards dominionist goals, it also sullies and denigrates the faith as well.
Their numbers may not be terribly large, but the Dominionists can whittle away at church/state separation as DuWayne suggests–and in a manner not unlike the Wedge strategy of the Creationists at the Discovery Institute–by acting at low levels (such as school boards, town councils) and saying things that appear reasonable to people who consider themselves fair-minded (but who are unfamiliar with the historical backgrounds or the agendas of the speakers).
[...] Clayton Cramer discusses the likelihood that dominionist Christians are going to take over and institute a theocracy. (HT: Positive Liberty) If all the “dominionist Christians” in the United States got together and organized a coup d’etat, there wouldn’t be enough of them to take over Horseshoe Bend. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never met one. The only place that I have ever seen a “dominionist Christian” is being interviewed on some Bill Moyers documentary. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]