Are Christians trying to take over the world?

The concept of dominionism is to say that they believe they have a God given right to rule all earthly institutions.

Personally I read this article and immediately thought it is bunk. I've heard many interviews from both Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and they are both just fundamentalist Christians. There's nothing that stands out to me in the way they talk or the things they say that is any different than any other Christian politician. Is dominionism real? Or is it just another coined phrase to justify fighting against the evils that religion creates in this world? We don't need another ism to justify that.  

Views: 697

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can agree with that.

 Yes, Dominionism is a real and dangerous movement that seeks to overthrow democratic governments and replace those governments with theocracies based on rule by divine right.

Dominionists hold certain unfounded beliefs.:

a) People are too selfish and arrogant to be trusted with self rule.

b) Allowing people to be self determined has created an immoral and self destructive "mobocracy"

c) Mankind can only be saved if they are forced to laws of God as handed to man through the bible.

This implies that a select few would be tasked with the interpretation, application and enforcement of the biblical law. Hmmm,,, kinda sounds lie the Inquisition, don't it?

Iy is interesting to note that the foundational rationale behind Dominionism is the same as that if Islamism ( not to be confused with Islam, Islamism is a political movement seeking to control mankind under the laws of God (Allah is Arabic for God) as written in Islamic texts, intrepreted, applied and enforced by a select few.

Dominionism is a seductive political movement, It rewards psychopathic leadership, and promises followers absolution though justification of blaming others for their own failures.

Dominionism is essentially a political form of Christianity. When people want to make laws based on biblical ideas because they think laws should be based on biblical ideas, then those people are leading into dominionism.

Anyone who espouses the belief that the USA was founded on Christian ideas and therefore Christianity should be a permanent fixture of American political ideology is giving credence to dominionism.

Anyone who says that they do not agree with the separation of church and state and that they would make decisions within the government based strictly on his or her religious beliefs is advocating dominionism.

When Sarah Palin says, "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments," she is clearly a dominionist.

Anyone who gives lip service to religious freedom, but whose actions seem to imply that they agree fully with the domination of the culture by one religion where others are marginalized and the idea that people must have a religious belief is widely pervasive and afford no protections to those who do not have any, then that person is unabashedly a dominionist.

Many of these people who hold these ideas or advocate for certain ideologies will never call themselves dominionists. They'd probably not even know what you are talking about. If I heard someone advocating for the federal government to take over the day to day management and operations of airlines, I would say that idea is socialist/borderline communist, but that person might not know what that particular concept is so they wouldn't call themselves a socialist/communist. That doesn't mean that they don't fit the bill. In a sense, it's kind of similar to how religious moderates create the kindling for the fires of fundamentalists. These people might not be wholly for a Christian theocracy, but by wanting more laws based on the Bible instead of reason or by being so suspicious of people of any other religion or non-religion that only members of the dominant religious groups become elected officials, then these people are actively fanning the flames of dominionism whether they are aware of it or not.

Well, and succinctly, said.

Thanks!

Actually, that should have read, "Well, succinctly, and if I may, sagaciously, said."

Fair enough! There's far worse reasons to admire someone :P

This, Belle, is what I meant by research, not just looking for what you want to find, but I know you know that, you're too intelligent not to.

Yeah, I've been reading up on her for most of the afternoon and am completely blown away by how often she just tells outright lies and false stories. It's ridiculous!

Oh! In your defense, I did find this in Lizza's article:

After the birth of her fourth child, in 1992, Bachmann left the I.R.S. to be a stay-at-home mother. The Bachmanns also began taking in foster children, all of whom were teen-age girls and many of whom had eating disorders. Bachmann’s motivation seems to have been to save the girls, in the same way that she had been saved. “In my heart, God put something in me toward young people that I wanted to make sure the Gospel would go out to young people,” she said, in 2006. “So that young people could come to know Jesus at an early age, the earlier the better, so that they wouldn’t have to go through those pitfalls.”

In total, the Bachmanns took in twenty-three girls; I spoke with one of them (she did not want her name used), who stayed with the Bachmanns for three and a half years and now lives in Colorado. She said, “I owe the Bachmanns everything. They offered me the structure I needed and taught me how to figure out goals. They really encouraged me to figure out who I was rather than who I was becoming. I turned my life around one hundred and eighty degrees.”

But in all fairness, following that it does say that she thinks that children should be paddled in school if the get "out of line" and that: "her foster children’s homework, she continued, 'had more to do with indoctrinating kids than educating kids. And the indoctrination had to do with anti-parent themes, anti-Biblical themes, anti-education themes, anti-academic themes.'"

I'm sorry you've seen the dark side of someone who inspired you so. There are probably lots of good people out there who care for these children like you do and live genuine, decent lives with upstanding values (well, ok, not tons of people, obviously...but there are good people out there doing great things). Gah!I just don't want you to become too disheartened! IMHO, there are very few politicians worth admiring...it is just the nature of their profession. I tread carefully if there is something I see in a politician that I like because there's always more 'spin' to unravel.

Belle, I, for one, never said she was all bad, just that she advocated Dominionism. Thomas Jefferson is one of my own heroes, yet I've devoted much of my life to the advocation of civil rights for all races, and Jefferson had a running sexual relationship with one of his female slaves for years. None of our heroes is all good, or all bad.

Of course I deplore her indoctrinating young girls, but she was so heavily invested in her delusion that she truly believed she was helping them. Unfortunately, there have also been delusional women who kill their children, to send them straight to heaven to be with god.

Regardless of her "selfless" intentions, I can't condone her behavior.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service