LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY greensh)

foomf said:

It may, theoretically, be a dominionist trait to have "Rapture Flags" on your car, but it's hardly unique to dominionists. Nor does a WWJD bracelet used as a personal religious touchstone (not unlike a crucifix worn on a necklace) in any way compare to a political campaign to subvert the government in order to install one's religious doctrines into law.

I fully acknowledge that dark_christian does not support Christian bashing. This is a very good thing. The comment prompted me to consider where the boundaries of discussion could be held. Are we striving for unique or are we addressing those things that a dominionist trait? IMO the "rapture flag" angle is a dominionist trait. Or is it? The key word here is dominionist.

Paraphrasing an understanding of the word, from the groups profile page:

Right-wing theocratic elements of the Christian faith, and how these religious supremacists are actively eroding the foundations of the separation of church and state in the US. Its major focus is on Dominionist Theocracy (also known as Christian Reconstructionalism)

This sounds very political. Is the rapture flag excluded from the dominionist traits because it is not political? Maybe that is the answer. I don't think it is the complete answer. Battle Cry is an organization that ministers to youths. Their mission statement is, "an on line community and resource for Christian teens, churches, youth groups, and leaders". They are not a lobbying group in Washington. Is is Christian bashing to talk about Battle Cry because they are not, by their own definition, political? Do we get to define what is political and what is not? Ah... the permutations.

Are we going after those topics with a dominionist trait (as defined above), or are we only talking about those things unique to dominionists? Are only political topics allowed? I would like to see people's opinions on what is approved ground for topics. I apologize if this sound trollish, but I very much believe in the power and intent of words, and I am feeling very philosophical this morning. Painting ourselves into a philosophical corner (trait vs. unique) does not help the excellent dialog I have seen here.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

I suppose that I should make this a monthly post, but I prefer to believe that folks here read the 'front door' on their own. But, just to make sure you know the rules, I will post the most pertinent ones here:

We respectfully request that you refrain from posting quizzes, flames, bashes, petitions, 'spams' for other Christian communities or any religious material which does not fit the simple guidelines above. Such entries will be deleted.

It is OK to criticize policies, judgement, ideas, etc. if you do so in a civilized and respectful manner. Do not attack the PERSON themselves. Bash away on your own blogs, please.

Do not post links to other people's Live Journals without their explicit permission.

Please avoid posting speculative or fearmongering articles- what they're already doing is bad enough without adding fuel (and foilhattery) to the fire. (The moderators have the ability to do research, and will do so, to determine if an article falls into this category.) Again, save stuff like that for your own blogs.

Please use discretion in posting 'act now!' articles. They must be relevant to the subject discussed.

Articles or posts which have no bearing on the subject will be deleted. We do use discretion when reading the articles- if an article does not specifically mention Dominionism, it does not mean that we will automatically remove it- but it should be part of the overall purpose of the community. For example, while an article about a Supreme Court nomination might not mention the influence of the Christian Right in the selection, it is clear that the selection of the Justice will have a lot of influence on the direction of church-state matters in the future. Such articles are permitted.

If you are posting an article from another source, please do not copy it in whole. Post an excerpt and a link to that article. This will keep us in good graces with the "Fair Use" requirements in copyright law. "Fair Use" shouldn't be more than three paragraphs.

There are people on this board from many diverse faiths. Please treat them with courtesy and respect. No bashing means no bashing, and it applies to all beliefs here- including Atheism and non-Abrahamic faiths. This is not a place to be prosetlysing or trying to convert people. Nor is this a place to debate why Catholics or Mormons are or are not True Christians. Trolls will be swiftly removed and banned from this community.

Mind your manners. Snarkiness and sarcasm are really not welcome here. If you feel the urge to start sniping or snarking, sit on your hands until the urge passes. We will show repeat offenders the door.

Joining and/or posting to this community means that you agree to adhere to the guidelines of this community.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY gothic_oreo)

Please do not post links to people's personal journals unless you have their permission. Doing so, especially if the journal owner takes it in a negative light, could lead to LJ Abuse taking action against the community.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY greensh)

This blog has been helpful in both toning down my Dominionist paranoia and (rightfully) inciting it. Kudos. I'm a philosophical type guy... and I hope everyone will suffer me a philosophical leaning question.

I've seen the affects of dominionist influence in school policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and environmental policy. One area in that I've not seen an affect is in emergency planning. Here is my take. The Rapture is a center piece of dominionist thinking. The rapture will cause havoc in areas of public safety, transportation, property law, inheritance, and so on. Personally, I've not seen a any movement in these areas in regards to the much embraced event. What gives? I have several theories:

1) The public masses aren't ready for this to be part of their reality. Dominionist supporters would open themselves to ridicule if the subject is broached. Foreign policy is fine, but don't tell the emergency responders about planes crashing from the skies with no pilots.
2) The dominionist policy makers and their constituents will be gone anyway, and the aftermath is not their business at that point.

Insights anybody? I am seriously wondering if the emergency response portion of public policy has been actually passed over while the "dominionist agenda" has touched so much else.