Radical Xtianity
Over on CHATTER I left a comment about some stupid rant from VD(j) the other day -- but, so what else is new?
Then I happened to think about a story from George Carlin. Here is is, paraphrased as best I remember it.
"Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If you need to be taller that is up to you -- put the lift in your shoe, or not.
But, let's not run around nailing lifts to the native's feet."
There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword.
Then I happened to think about a story from George Carlin. Here is is, paraphrased as best I remember it.
"Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If you need to be taller that is up to you -- put the lift in your shoe, or not.
But, let's not run around nailing lifts to the native's feet."
There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword.
posted by John Stone at 3:34 AM
12 Comments:
John writes:
"There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword."
Just a couple of questions, if you don't mind....
Is there a large percentage of the Christian population who you would consider to be "dominionists?"
Do you include the growing population of Progressive Christians among those Dominionists since they are actively trying to link Progressive politics with Christian values?
JackeM .. Do I consider them a large percentage ... no .. but the radical muslims are not the majority either. Let me just stick for a second to the crazies of our own.
The Federalist Society does not represent all lawyers, however, they have found a friendly home in this government and now sit in very high positions of authority in government where they can do their will. The dominionists are the same problem. They reperesent a faction, like the neo-cons who have been in friendly territory for a time now .. time to consolidate power in their positions, their think-tanks, their PR spin ...
The Progressives in the Church are less well known, I link Mainstream Baptist in the sidebar. I just heard of a minister of a megachurch who lost his congregation because he was interested in things like poverty and peace, rather than abortion and gays.
Last I heard the crazies were about 25 % of America. Personally, I think they have been cynically used in a political sense, it's the ones in decision-making positions that worry me.
Thank you.
I think you are a bit of an alarmist if you view, as you said, Christian "Dominionists" as the same as radical Islamic terrorists. How many acts of terrorism have the "Dominionists" perpetrated as opposed to radical Islamic terrorists?
Did you intend the play on words with "sword" or was it unintentional?
Something else I was thinking about?
Where did you "hear" the figure of 25%? That sounds high to me.
What do you consider to be indicative of "Dominionism?" Clearly not all Christians are "Dominionists," so which Christians are?
JackeM writ: Did you intend the play on words with "sword" or was it unintentional?
Very, very good !!! It was unintentional when I typed it but loved it when I saw it. I thought it was way too subtle for anyone to catch though. I really enjoy plays on words and puns and double or even triple, meanings while I am doing some free association that is the blog. It's just the way my mind works I guess. Rhetorica and CHATTER call it "unfocused", I call it clever. The only place you won't see it is when I write about science.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
(or many other sites)for a fuller discussion of what I mean by the numbers I presented. I think you can say that of the 25% that will hang with Bush no matter what, most of them self-identify as evangelicals/fundamentalists, and a very high percentage are dominionists, although they themselves perhaps don't know it.
We make the mistake of thinking that since we are the good guys with the true religion that that 500 lb bomb we drop out of an airplane is good, and the 500 lbs of fertillizer in the trunk of the car the bad guy uses is cowardly and unfair. One of the lessons we learned, and then forgot, was in Vietnam, where we discovered that a technologically backward force can defeat an advanced force if they have the will to do it. We have B-2's -- they have the commitment to defeat us. And here's a big hint -- they are going to win.
You fight with what you got. If you ain't got airplanes and tanks you fight with martyrs and ammonium nitrate.
650,000 dead in Iraq ... say half of them caused by us? You can not make the claim that blood is not on your hands.
I'm trying very hard to take you seriously but when you use such broad terms to describe who you believe is "Dominionist" and your figure is based on, what seems to me, a personal hunch, how can I?
It appears you are trying to redefine "Dominionism" as anyone who "will hang with Bush no matter what," and that's all speculative, as well. How do we know whether any person (or these you identify as 25%) would hang with Bush "no matter what" unless he does "no matter what?" What is "no matter what?"
At any rate, I asked you a question and though perhaps I could have phrased it better, like, say, "What is your opinion of what constitutes a "Dominionist?" You have given me an answer. I wonder if you are engaging in a kind of reverse (?) McCarhyism?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) Wherein any Christian who has a traditionalistic ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/traditionalistic)world view is suspected of "Dominionism?"
Yep ...
Except I was the guy in the front of the airplane, not the tailgunner ... besides, I will leave it to his Repugs to be loopy.
Those references in Wikipedia to the "overreactions" and the "McCarthyitism" remind me of dragging out the Hitler Zombie when an argument is being lost. The dominionist are real ... and here ... and in important positions where they determine life and death... it's not an exaggeration.
The leaders of the movement depend on the ignorance of the people who blindly follow them for their power. The religious are the worst in the world to follow some goofy idea becasue they have been told that they can't be good Xtians unless they do...
The leaders are the problem ... not the hangers on ... they are the privates and the sergeants in the SS, not Himmler.
John, if you will note I have never denied the existence of Dominionism.
You have an opinion about it's reach, and in my own opinion I believe your opinion is an exaggeration and hence, somewhat alarmist.
Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you can better support your claim...and I'll have to assume you can't because otherwise you would have, wouldn't you?
Thank you for answering my questions. I have a clearer view about how you think, which is what I was really interested in, after all.
Dominationism is only a small threat to our freedoms...rather than taking a granular view, aim higher...Neo-conservatives and Zionists...that's where the true threats are. The rest is 'Chatter'.
http://www.documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.814
...sorry, I misspelled Dominionists...the same theory applies however. Heck, i may have created a new 'ism' or 'ist' to label and be afraid of. Ive seen a few movies about domination.
Oh, JackeM, I never intend to change anyone's mind ... just to get them to see things in a different way than they do is good enough for me.
And I certainly don't ask anyone to agree with me ... hell, I get along with Libbyloonies, fer christ's;sake ....
But you are smart and good and you can figure it out all on your own without my help...
http://jackehammer.blogspot.com/2006/12/progressive-christian-dominionists.html
http://pos51.org/2006/12/06/straw-man-city/
Post a Comment
<< Home