LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY einatlanta)

The main mod for this comm, sunfell, is unavailable for comment today on the issues raised here by swisscelt.

For this reason, the community is not in a position to respond to questions, requests for new memberships, or general policy matters today. Please be patient as the mods come to an agreement as to a unified response and possible solutions. This community really means quite a lot to its mods and regular contributors, and so passions can run rather high at times. Still, let's try to do what's best for the comm in the long view of things, and wait until sunfell has a chance to catch up and respond.

The response may not be available until Monday.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY dagoski) I was out for the big brouhaha over swisscelt's earlier post. As for myself, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the whole issue. I tend to be very bigoted towards Christians, unfortunately, with very good reason. The church I was dragged to a a kid would change the denomination listed on its sign every six months or so presumably as they received cease and desist orders from the leadership of those denominations. And no one seemed to notice. What I remember of the theology was very twisted including a lot stuff about race that just didn't fit with what I saw outside. The experience was not pleasant nor have my other experiences with Christianity been positive. I wish I knew more about what was going on, but the Church pretended to be quite normal. Only as time wore on did its craziness become more and more evident. In a way, I think this is a metaphor for what's happening to Christianity in this generation. Based on conversations I've had with some of the better religious people I've known over the years, the brand of religiosity we now know as Dominionism started in the South as a reaction to the victories of the Civil Rights Movement. From there it's spread. I'd appreciate reading dogemperor's thoughts on this. I'm guessing that not only did they found weird stealth churches like the one I went to, but they were invading other congregations even in the 1970s. And that brings me to the actual point of this post. On commenter in swisscelt's post mentioned a book with an interesting title: Antagonists in the Church. I went looking on Amazon to see what this is all about and turned up a second book along the same lines Clergy Killers: Guidance for Pastors and Congregations Under Attack .  The first one was written in 1988 and the later in 1997.  Both books talk about the attackers in terms of mental illness.  Neither mentions anything about organized efforts, but the awareness of disruptive elements in the midst of more mainstream congregations goes back quite sometime.  Steeplejacking seems like a new term that's come up only in the past few years, but these books both make it very clear to me that an organized effort to take churches over has been underway for a very long time now.  Read the reviews of these books and note their dates.  What we're seeing in terms of Dominionism might not necessarily be rooted in the scripture, but rather rooted in a fundamentally political movement that seeks to develop power for its own sake.   What do people know about the history of steeplejacking?  Do we know how long it's been going on?  Have any of you in the community been through it?  If so, please share your experiences.  

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Wow. Go away for a day and win a speaking contest, and I find that this community is in a total uproar.

Over what? Ah, yes, apologetics. This is not an apologetic community. This is a investigative and educational community. The subject happens to be Christianity, and the focus is on people who use the guise of very radical interpretations of the Christian faith to foster their political aims. Our discussion aims to reveal these often stealthy and underhanded people and their schemes and differentiate their actions and beliefs from those of traditional Christians. They are often very close- but the Dominionists want to take rights away from people who do not believe exactly the way they do, and rule this country under very harsh Biblical laws. The major difference is this: They want to impose their beliefs under rule of law. That is the bright line we must maintain.

And for the most part, we've been successful. It's a mighty bright and fine line we draw when discussing such an explosive subject. Sometimes it's too explosive. Some folks come in with their own pro-or anti- Christian agendas and try to foist them upon us. Some don't do their homework or read the User Info page. Others don't seem to want to mind their manners, and then attack those who remind them about the purpose of manners.

It gets tiresome to remind such people that their own LJs are the place for such antics. There are a lot of people here, and sometimes the signal-to-noise level gets out of hand. And sometimes things are repeated. In a community this large, that is to be expected. Unfortunately, there are folks who- for whatever reason- do not see the bigger picture, and who put their own agendas in place of the one of this community. Maybe they're attracted to all the eyeballs here and the built-in audience. Maybe they're having a bad day and posted to DC instead of their own LJ. Whatever the reason, this is not the place for such nonsense, and we cannot tolerate deviation from the guidelines. Doing so gives carte blanche to others to in turn do their own disrupting, and ultimately has a destabilizing effect on the entire community. That is not its purpose. This isn't a drama club.

My vision for creating this community was to educate and awaken, and for the most part, it has done so. The people I selected as moderators of this very busy and explosive community are people I trust to maintain that vision. I trust them to maintain the stability and order of this community, and they do a damn good job. Attacking them is not something I care for. They're doing my job in my absence. None of us is making any money or getting any credit for running this community- it is a labor of love. The mod team are all volunteers- they can quit at any time.

The level of education and insight displayed by posters here is astonishing. I learn something new here every day. In that way, DC has paid off for me- and anyone seeking to learn more about Dominionist Christianity- enormously. I really like the levelheaded discourses I find in the comments- and I do take time to read all of them. I'm here to learn, too. But when things go flying off the rails, it becomes difficult for me not to want to pull the plug on the entire thing. I have a low tolerance for nonsense. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but if they continue to violate the guidelines, they cannot be permitted to remain a member of Dark Christianity. My moderator team has the authority to remove people in my absence if they cannot follow the simple rules we've set out.

Folks, we have to play nice here. I know that to some, that's a cliched phrase, but considering the subject matter, it's the main guideline. And staying on topic is the other main guideline. If the subject is obscure, the link to Dominionist purposes has to be shown. No foil hattery, no rumors- just solid links. I don't expect research on dogemperor's level, but I do expect you to do your homework. There's a lot of brainpower here. Use it wisely.

Let's get back on topic now, shall we?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY thexphial)

I am a strong believer that in order to fight Dominionism we must understand and fight for our rights as free people. With this in mind I have come up against an issue in my own workplace that has tested my resolve.

I work for a program that is state funded, under the administration of a local agency that receives some private money, but is mostly funded through state and federal grants. We have an anti-discrimination policy in place and have all been trained on what constitutes harassment, including religious harassment. In spite of this, there are several ways in which Christianity, and evangelical Christianity in specific, are promoted through the agency.

My particular problem is with the email system. I must use my agency email address for work purposes and am often hit with emails that have signatures with Bible verses or exhortations to examine my soul for sin in them. I have mentioned it to my immediate boss, and she agreed it was inappropriate, but I continue to get the emails. I have also received mass email invitations of events hosted by Teen Mania and YWAM, both of which are headquartered nearby. Recently a co-worker announced that he was resigning via email and took the opportunity to ask the entire agency to pledge money to his new place of employment, an evangelical program to minister to at-risk youth.

Again, I brought this to the attention of my boss, and she told me it was inappropriate, but since he was leaving anyway, there was nothing she could do. I would like to have the agency institute a policy of no religious content through the agency email system, but am unsure how to go about getting this done. I like my job, and I work in an at-will state where anyone can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. Surely, since the email system is paid for by state and federal funds, I have some legal recourse here. I chose to work for this program in part because it was not faith-based in any way, and I would like to continue being able to work there without being hated for stirring trouble.

So, is there a specific agency or program that would be able to help me with this? Would the ACLU be an appropriate place to start? Though it is not interfering with my ability to do my job, I am afraid that if I leave it unchecked the tendrils of inappropriate crossover between church and state will grow. I am afraid that it will start to affect the clientèle, much of which is at-risk and highly vulnerable due to mental retardation, mental illness, and poverty.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY popesnarky)

Hail Eris!

http://www.greenswatch.com/

They have the usual Dom trick of painting their ideological foes as being the sort they themselves are, and their taste for overheated language about Green policies is also cute -- to wit, "Greens Economic Policies would cause a Stockmarket Crash" (Goddess, it's good to see people with their priorities in order!); "Greens to reintroduce death tax"; "Banning Pet Ownership -- Bizarre Greens Policy" -- but the best part has to be the pages about "Creepy Greens", which includes ~gasp!~ a *witch*, and "Freaks", where you'll find a witch who ~whisper~ believes in fairies! ~/Mrs. Grundy~

http://www.greenswatch.com/creepy_greens.aspx

http://www.greenswatch.com/greens_freaks.aspx

Snarky