Dominionism: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Christian Right" to "Christian Right") |
||
(13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PropDel}}<br><br> | |||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{TOC|right}} | {{TOC|right}} | ||
'''Dominionism''' is a term used to describe various sets of theological/political ideologies held among a subset of persons identified with the | '''Dominionism''' is a term used to describe various sets of theological/political ideologies held among a subset of persons identified with the Christian Right in the [[United States of America]]. One can be a [[Religious conservatism|religious conservative]], with aspects of social conservatism and [[American conservatism#Traditional conservative|traditional conservatism]], but as long as accepts that it operates within a pluralistic society amd lobbies for legislation and judicial action as guided by their beliefs, understanding that these are their positions, are not considered dominionists. | ||
Religious conservatives can believe that the United States was founded by Christians, although this is not universally accepted among historians, and less so that it was founded for Christians, without being dominionists. Dominionism only begins when a citizen wants to change laws, or the system of government, to follow specifically Christian ideas. The term would not apply to someone wanting to apply a different set of religious laws, such as [[Sharia]]. | |||
Dominionist ideas vary as to the scope of the Christianity they consider valid. Most "hard" conservative are fundamentalist Protestants, often Baptists or Pentecostals. Some work with Catholics, while others reject them. Most will not accept Mormons. | |||
==Major religious framework== | ==Major religious framework== | ||
Again remembering they operate within a framework of American exceptionalism, their key Biblical support tends to be Genesis 1:26, which, in the [[King James Version]], reads<blockquote> | Again remembering they operate within a framework of [[American exceptionalism]], their key Biblical support tends to be Genesis 1:26, which, in the [[King James Version]], reads<blockquote> | ||
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have '''dominion''' over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</blockquote> | And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have '''dominion''' over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</blockquote> | ||
{{Seealso|Christian Zionism}} | {{Seealso|Christian Zionism}} | ||
While it is not strictly in the United States, affecting U.S. policy towards the [[State of Israel]] specifically and the [[Middle East]] generally are theologies including [[dispensationalism]] and [[dispensational premillennism]]. a theological approach that claims that "God relates to human beings via different covenants ("dispensations"). Dispensationalism is a set of beliefs that God has specific events in working with man. <ref>{{citation | While it is not strictly in the United States, affecting U.S. policy towards the [[State of Israel]] specifically and the [[Middle East]] generally are theologies including [[dispensationalism]] and [[dispensational premillennism]]. a theological approach that claims that "God relates to human beings via different covenants ("dispensations"). Dispensationalism is a set of beliefs that God has specific events in mind as a means of working with man. <ref>{{citation | ||
| publisher = Endtimes.org | | publisher = Endtimes.org | ||
| title = Dispensationalism | | title = Dispensationalism | ||
| url = http://www.endtimes.org/dispens.html}}</ref> Among these is that Jews must return to Israel before the Messiah will come; the formation of the State of Israel was a key step in achieving this goal. | | url = http://www.endtimes.org/dispens.html}}</ref> Among these is that Jews must return to Israel before the Messiah will come; the formation of the State of Israel was a key step in achieving this goal. | ||
In | In dispensational millennialism, according Stephen Sizer, there is an assumption "that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants will be literally instituted; and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centered on Jerusalem."<ref name=Sizer>{{citation | ||
| title = Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon? | | title = Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon? | ||
| author = Steven Sizer | | author = Steven Sizer | ||
Line 22: | Line 28: | ||
*Christian Theocracy or "hard dominionists" believe that authority must be held only by Christians, usually Christian men. They reject non-[[Abraham|Abrahamic]] religions, non-Christian Abrahamic religions such as [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]], and often other Christian denominations as having any right to govern. Some further identify: | *Christian Theocracy or "hard dominionists" believe that authority must be held only by Christians, usually Christian men. They reject non-[[Abraham|Abrahamic]] religions, non-Christian Abrahamic religions such as [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]], and often other Christian denominations as having any right to govern. Some further identify: | ||
**Christian Reconstructionism, a theonomic movement that seeks to replace the secular governance model of the [[U.S. Constitution]], creating a political and judicial system based on Old Testament Law, or Mosaic Law. | **Christian Reconstructionism, a theonomic movement that seeks to replace the secular governance model of the [[U.S. Constitution]], creating a political and judicial system based on Old Testament Law, or Mosaic Law. | ||
Soft dominionists are most common. Concerned Women for America, for example, has a mission to "bring Biblical values into all aspects of American life". Hard dominionism can blur into goals of overthrowing the government rather than taking control through the electoral process. | |||
==Justification in political theory== | ==Justification in political theory== | ||
At various times, dispensationalists cite support in U.S. political documents such as the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[Declaration of Independence]], as well as, at a slight remove, the writings of the Founding Fathers. They also may cite certain court decisions, and some political writings not from the U.S. but from the West generally may be invoken. | At various times, dispensationalists cite support in U.S. political documents such as the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[U.S. Declaration of Independence]], as well as, at a slight remove, the writings of the Founding Fathers. They also may cite certain court decisions, and some political writings not from the U.S. but from the West generally may be invoken. | ||
===Core Constitutional arguments=== | ===Core Constitutional arguments=== | ||
Perhaps the heart of these arguments are interpretations of the | Perhaps the heart of these arguments are interpretations of the First Amendment of the [[U.S. Constitution]]: <blockquote>''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof''; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. </blockquote> | ||
That heart beats beginning with the italicized "Establishment Clause. Some interpret it as meaning a positive statement for religious practice in no way restricted by governmental authority. Others see it as guaranteeing a freedom ''from'' religion. Dominionists tend to see a meaning that the Constitution calls for no [[separation of church and state]]. | That heart beats beginning with the italicized "Establishment Clause. Some interpret it as meaning a positive statement for religious practice in no way restricted by governmental authority. Others see it as guaranteeing a freedom ''from'' religion. Dominionists tend to see a meaning that the Constitution calls for no [[separation of church and state]]. | ||
Line 42: | Line 50: | ||
}}, p. 2</ref> | }}, p. 2</ref> | ||
==Historical variation== | ==Historical variation== | ||
Pat Robertson has said, "Are we a Christian nation now? It's doubtful. But did we start out as one? Without question." <ref name=BQ>{{citation | |||
| title = Pat Robertson Quotes | | title = Pat Robertson Quotes | ||
| url = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/patroberts361384.html | | url = http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/patroberts361384.html | ||
Line 50: | Line 58: | ||
Robertson replied that it is not all disrespectful because all other religions really just worship “demonic powers.”: <blockquote>No. They don’t have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world. <ref>{{citation | Robertson replied that it is not all disrespectful because all other religions really just worship “demonic powers.”: <blockquote>No. They don’t have a relationship. There is the god of the Bible, who is Jehovah. When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world. <ref>{{citation | ||
| title = Robertson Says All Other Religions Worship “Demonic Powers” | | title = Robertson Says All Other Religions Worship “Demonic Powers” | ||
| | | date =November 16, 2006 | date = 16 February 2006 | ||
| url =http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/11/robertson_says.html | |||
| publisher = Right Wing Watch, [[People for the American Way]]}}</ref></blockquote> | | publisher = Right Wing Watch, [[People for the American Way]]}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
==Political activity== | ==Political activity== | ||
Line 58: | Line 67: | ||
| author = Jim Stratton | journal = Orlando Sentinel | date = 26 August 2006}}</ref> | | author = Jim Stratton | journal = Orlando Sentinel | date = 26 August 2006}}</ref> | ||
[[Roy Moore]], chief judge of the [[Alabama]] Supreme Court, was removed from office for refusing a Federal judge's order to remove large displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from his courtroom and the courthouse.<ref name=CNN>{{citation | [[Roy Moore]], chief judge of the [[Alabama (U.S. state)]] Supreme Court, was removed from office for refusing a Federal judge's order to remove large displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from his courtroom and the courthouse.<ref name=CNN>{{citation | ||
| title = Ten Commandments judge removed from office | | title = Ten Commandments judge removed from office | ||
| date = 14 November 2003 | journal = | | date = 14 November 2003 | journal = CNN | ||
| url = http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/index.html}}</ref> He has formed the [[Foundation for Moral Law]] to argue the legality of such actions. His website "Q&A section" gives the justification that <blockquote>'''Q4: Why is it important to post the Ten Commandments?''' | | url = http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/index.html}}</ref> He has formed the [[Foundation for Moral Law]] to argue the legality of such actions. His website "Q&A section" gives the justification that <blockquote>'''Q4: Why is it important to post the Ten Commandments?''' | ||
<br /><br /> | <br /><br /> | ||
Line 86: | Line 95: | ||
|opinion = [[David Souter]] | |opinion = [[David Souter]] | ||
|url= http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZS.html}}, 844</ref> | |url= http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZS.html}}, 844</ref> | ||
that these Ten Commandments displays were constitutional under the historic meaning of the First Amendment to acknowledge God’s superintending providence over this nation. Simply put, just because the Ten Commandments are religious does not mean that they are an “establishment of religion,” which is what the First Amendment prohibits. The Founders never intended to ban religious things from public view and we should not have to diminish God’s word by relegating it to mere history in order to show it in public. | that these Ten Commandments displays were constitutional under the historic meaning of the First Amendment to acknowledge God’s superintending providence over this nation. Simply put, just because the Ten Commandments are religious does not mean that they are an “establishment of religion,” which is what the First Amendment prohibits. The Founders never intended to ban religious things from public view and we should not have to diminish God’s word by relegating it to mere history in order to show it in public.</blockquote> | ||
The Court did not uphold the Foundation position. | The Court did not uphold the Foundation position. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} |
Latest revision as of 15:31, 7 June 2024
This article may be deleted soon. | ||
---|---|---|
Dominionism is a term used to describe various sets of theological/political ideologies held among a subset of persons identified with the Christian Right in the United States of America. One can be a religious conservative, with aspects of social conservatism and traditional conservatism, but as long as accepts that it operates within a pluralistic society amd lobbies for legislation and judicial action as guided by their beliefs, understanding that these are their positions, are not considered dominionists. Religious conservatives can believe that the United States was founded by Christians, although this is not universally accepted among historians, and less so that it was founded for Christians, without being dominionists. Dominionism only begins when a citizen wants to change laws, or the system of government, to follow specifically Christian ideas. The term would not apply to someone wanting to apply a different set of religious laws, such as Sharia. Dominionist ideas vary as to the scope of the Christianity they consider valid. Most "hard" conservative are fundamentalist Protestants, often Baptists or Pentecostals. Some work with Catholics, while others reject them. Most will not accept Mormons. Major religious frameworkAgain remembering they operate within a framework of American exceptionalism, their key Biblical support tends to be Genesis 1:26, which, in the King James Version, reads
While it is not strictly in the United States, affecting U.S. policy towards the State of Israel specifically and the Middle East generally are theologies including dispensationalism and dispensational premillennism. a theological approach that claims that "God relates to human beings via different covenants ("dispensations"). Dispensationalism is a set of beliefs that God has specific events in mind as a means of working with man. [1] Among these is that Jews must return to Israel before the Messiah will come; the formation of the State of Israel was a key step in achieving this goal. In dispensational millennialism, according Stephen Sizer, there is an assumption "that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants will be literally instituted; and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centered on Jerusalem."[2] Political subsystemsWhile there are a variety of schools of thought, each maintains that it is a duty of Christians to obtain influence or control government and initiate change in keeping with what are held as Biblical principles and laws. Individual dominionists and dominionist groups vary, but some broad classes have emerged.
Soft dominionists are most common. Concerned Women for America, for example, has a mission to "bring Biblical values into all aspects of American life". Hard dominionism can blur into goals of overthrowing the government rather than taking control through the electoral process. Justification in political theoryAt various times, dispensationalists cite support in U.S. political documents such as the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Declaration of Independence, as well as, at a slight remove, the writings of the Founding Fathers. They also may cite certain court decisions, and some political writings not from the U.S. but from the West generally may be invoken. Core Constitutional argumentsPerhaps the heart of these arguments are interpretations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
That heart beats beginning with the italicized "Establishment Clause. Some interpret it as meaning a positive statement for religious practice in no way restricted by governmental authority. Others see it as guaranteeing a freedom from religion. Dominionists tend to see a meaning that the Constitution calls for no separation of church and state. Declaration of IndependenceSome dominionists argue that the Declaration of Independence is even more supportive of their position than is the Constitution. As a first observation, the Constitution does not contain the words "declaration of independence." Second, the Declaration does contain phrases including "Laws of Nature", "Nature's God", "Men are created by their creator with certain inalienable rights", and a "firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence." Nowhere, however, does it have any references to Jesus Christ, the God of Christianity or the Bible. Alan Dershowitz, a critic of what he calls the "hijacking of the Declaration" by Dominionists, cites 20th century Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell's comment "I would see no constitutional problem if school children were taught the nature of the Founding Fathers' religious belief and how these beliefs affected the attitudes of the times and the structure of our government.[3] Dershowitz, however, argues that these phrases meant different things to their 18th century author they do in 21st century legal English. He continues to quote Dominionist David Burton[3] as saying "Many people erroneously consider the Constitution to be a higher form of government than the Declaration. However, under our form of government, the Constitution is not superior to the Declaration of Independence; a vilolation of the Declaration is just as serious as a breach of the Constitution (emphasis in origina). [t]he Constitution cannot be properly interpreted or applied apart from the natural law principles presented in the Declaration. The two documents must be used together to understand either one individually. Dershowitz, however, says "this view of the legal status of the Declaration has never been accepted by the courts, but it is accepted as gospel by many on the American Right.[4] Historical variationPat Robertson has said, "Are we a Christian nation now? It's doubtful. But did we start out as one? Without question." [5] Further, he responded, on a call-in radio show, to the question " Why [do] evangelical Christians tell non-Christians that Jesus (God) is the only way to Heaven? Those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc. already know and have a relationship with God. Why is this? It seems disrespectful. Robertson replied that it is not all disrespectful because all other religions really just worship “demonic powers.”:
Political activityIn the 2006 United States congressional election, Katherine Harris, in the Florida Baptist State Convention journal, God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that a failure to elect Christians to political office will allow lawmaking bodies to "legislate sin." Criticism was not limited to Democrats; Ruby Brooks, local Tampa Bay Republican activist, found her comments "...offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican...it's the height of hubris...We hurt our cause with that more than we help it. Jillian Hasner, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said: "I don't think it's representative of the Republican Party at all. Our party is much bigger and better than Katherine Harris is trying to make it." [7] Roy Moore, chief judge of the Alabama (U.S. state) Supreme Court, was removed from office for refusing a Federal judge's order to remove large displays of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and the courthouse.[8] He has formed the Foundation for Moral Law to argue the legality of such actions. His website "Q&A section" gives the justification that
Of course, his statement could be true only in the context that the Abrahamic God is assumed the only deity.
The Court did not uphold the Foundation position. References
|