Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back December 13th, 2005 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
Chip Berlet on Dominionism


This Talk To Action essay by Chip Berlet goes into some detail about the 'types' of Dominionism, and how we can distinguish them and find people who have not been poisoned by it to work with:

Who is a dominionist?

Barron argued that "in the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus."

Around World War II it was the sentiment of many evangelical Protestants in the United States that they needed to find a way to co-exist with an increasingly pluralistic society, and thus they began to self-identify as "evangelicals" to distinguish themselves from the more doctrinaire and intolerant wing of "fundamentalism."

Barron believes that the "all-encompassing agenda" of the dominionists "puts them at odds with those more moderate evangelicals who work for social change yet still affirm the pluralistic nature of a society in which all ideas--be they Christian or anti-Christian, derived from or opposed to biblical law--have an equal right to be heard and to compete for public acceptance."

So evangelicals can work for conservative social change without being "dominionist," and some can be our allies in building broad opposition to dominionism as an impulse in the Christian Right. This is aided in part by an intractable contradiction among practitioners of hard forms of dominion theology.

As Sara Diamond explains, ultimately, "Dominionist thinking precludes coalitions between believers and unbelievers...." This creates an irresolvable contradictory tension. "The Christian Right wants to take dominion," notes Diamond, but it also wants to work within "the existing political-economic system, at the same time." The broader the Christian Right stretches as an electoral coalition, the more obvious it becomes that some of its key leaders want a theocracy rather than a democracy. Hard-line dominionists want to overthrow the existing political-economic system and replace it with a theocracy. That's a real hard sell to most of our neighbors.

In the United States today, there is a struggle between democracy and theocracy--as Fred Clarkson so aptly puts it in the title of his book. This is obvious to many of us, perhaps, but it is largely being ignored by the mainstream media and most Christian evangelicals. This is a wedge issue that can only be effective if we learn how to distinguish among the many different theological, political, organizational, and other aspects of Christian belief and political participation. Using terms such as "dominionism" and "theocracy" in a cautious and careful way allows us to broaden the conversation, and broaden the coalition that seeks to defend the dream of democracy against the nightmare of theocracy.

The entire article is worth your time.

dogemperor [userpic]
The Hidden Threat within the Provisions of the Patriot Act

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]navytron89)

With the coming renewal of the Patriot Act (a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11) certain provisions have come to light. The ACLU is stepping up and letting people know about this provision which grants special powers to the Secret Service. 

Here's where the problem is in regarding the dominonists and their quest for a Theocratic America;

If and when a Theocrat get into higher political office, they gain the protection of  Secret Service and here's where than provision is a problem. 

First off, the Religious Reich could/would use this to limit press from monitoring their activities by using the Secret Service as a shield: Any controversial press people can be viewed as a potential disruptor of a political event, so basic freedom of the press would go right out the window, and only selected press representivates would be allowed in.

A nice way to control a room of followers/supporters without having to worry about media interferance.

Additionally this provision would allow the Religious Reich an extra tool against people, protestors could be detained and then listed as a possible domestic threat/suspect which would be used against them. 

After which those people can be monitored by law enforcement, including electronic investigations and warrant-less searches of homes/business, and wasted money and man-hours against the innocent citizens instead of combating real terrorists (like the dominonists themselves). 

Can anyone see the irony here??? 

This whole provision sounds rather Orwellian to me;  in the regards of this little item can be used by the Religious Reich as a tool to control people's right to protest against something unjust and unrealistic (as well as Un-American).

Current Mood: cynical
dogemperor [userpic]
Latest in "moral refusal"--refusing reproductive services to gay/les/bi folks

Per http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20051212/cr_ct/lesbiandoctorsdeniedartificialinseminationbecauseofreligion the "moral refusal" movement in dominionist circles is now targeting reproductive services for gay/les/bi folks:

A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs.

The doctors' lawyer, Carlo Coppo, said his clients were committed to fair treatment of Benitez — from fertilization to pregnancy and birth — but that aiding the actual act of conception compromised their religious views.

"[Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate."

Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said the appeals court ruling was troubling because it opened the door to all kinds of discrimination.

"It certainly is a social problem and a legal problem if someone enters a commercial business and can be told they will not receive the same services that another person can," Pizer said.

Both attorneys agree the case is the first of its kind and tests whether a doctor can choose who to treat based on religious beliefs.

Coppo says denying doctors their religious rights is also a form of discrimination, and that the law allows doctors to choose who they treat consistent with their religious convictions as long as they offer alternative means for care.

Pizer says a doctor's religious freedoms should not come at the expense of a patient's care.

If the courts rule in favour of the clinic, this could open the floodgates to dominionist doctors flat out refusing to render any medical treatment--even lifesaving treatment--to people simply because they think they are gay or disagree with "lifestyle" of the person they're treating (even more so than they are open already--Mississippi's law, and proposed laws in two other states, are *already* so broad as to allow any medical professional to refuse to treat you simply because you may be gay or pagan and they feel treating you would "violate their morals").

I've posted a summary of the various threads on "Moral refusal clauses" that I've done here on Dark Christianity in past. Dominionists will *not* be satisfied unless and until they not only can completely control people's reproductive (and other) destinies but they also hope to establish a sort of "medical apartheid" in which people will have to submit to dominionist rule or else. Convert or die, literally. They literally want to have the legal choice to allow someone to die because they are not a dominionist. They've admitted this to their own.

dogemperor [userpic]
Another kid, another pentacle.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]charlayne)

This is another one of those examples we keep running into:

Teacher Forces Girl To Remove Religious Necklace

POSTED: 6:59 am EST December 13, 2005

WFTV.com (Florida), October 13, 2005 (found off www.witchvox.com) WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. -- A Seminole County mother is speaking out after her daughter's teacher forced her to remove a necklace, which is a religious sign.

The necklace is a pentacle, a sign of the Wiccan religion.

Aleigh Garmen said Indian Trails Middle School teacher Mary McNeal told her to remove the necklace because it represents Satan. The girl took it off, but with her mother's permission she was transferred to a new class with a failing grade.

Her mother feels it's no different than someone wearing a cross.

"It's your right to be Christian, just like it's my right to be Wiccan, just like it's my daughter's right to wear a necklace," said the girl's mother, Angi Martin.

Channel 9 tried to talk to the teacher, but she would not comment.

The school district said it should have never happened and gave the teacher a warning.

Copyright 2005 by wftv.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

My only question is why the failing grade?

Back December 13th, 2005 Forward