Rick Perry’s and Michelle Bachman’s “dominionism”?
http://www.care2.com/news/member/864072146/2909824
https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god
Link to the DailyBeast article that seems to have stirred the storm: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html
A summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
On the other hand, some claim that dominionism is a myth: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2767032/posts
Are the tenets of Christian political dominionism (or any other religious dominionism, for that matter)—that is, an eventual theocratic dominion to be obtained via election to public office—a threat to a democratic republic, or not? Are they just like any other personal theological belief? Or is it all a myth? (Please back up your views with some reasoning, rather than just stark assertions.)
_________________________________________________
BTW, I am not here interested in other theological views of the dominionists, just what might have implications for American politics. That’s why this is here and not on the Spirituality Forum.
Originally posted by vistesdLet's be honest here, the term was to smear the Christian right, not to attack other religions like Islam.
Rick Perry’s and Michelle Bachman’s “dominionism”?
http://www.care2.com/news/member/864072146/2909824
https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god
Link to the DailyBeast article that seems to have stirred the storm: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religio ...[text shortened]... implications for American politics. That’s why this is here and not on the Spirituality Forum.
The irony here being that Islam contains the only theocracies in the world today with potential ones in the works. If I were to post something about the evils of such Islamic theocracies, the same people here who sing the praises of the evils of the Christian right would be up in arms about attacking Islamic theocracies or potential ones like in Egypt. Do I find such theocracies dangerous? Definately, theocracies have historically been a formula for oppression and violence. Theocracies simply afford sinful man to pursue their sinful agenda's in the name of God.
Personally, I think the chances of a theocracy in the US are nill. Lets be honest, what we are really discussing are three controversial issues which are abortion, gay marriage, and creationism taught in schools.
As for my postitions on these issues, I think that the unborn are actually human beings. At least, they always seem to come out human, unless they are progressives by nature. In terms of gay marriage, I don't favor the state being involved at all with marriage. In terms of creationism taught in schools, science only is a study of the material universe, not the immaterial, from which God proports to function, so I don't really understand the argument that we need science to study the immaterial.
Of course, politicians who are trying to win the nomination to their respective party try to appeal to the far right or left of their party. Then in the general election they try to become a centrist. This is the political philosophy adopted by Nixon and it seems to work. That is why you here some rather wacky dialogue at times, especially in preperation for the next election. At least, they are guessing what the far right and left want to hear. As for me, it does not work and I dare say that for many it does not either. Basically all they need to do is focus on fiscal sanity, but personally I don't believe any of them are interested in it and is why they would rather talk about gay marriage or creationism taught in schools while the nation destroys itself in debt. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Originally posted by KunsooAt first Wolf thought they were talking about a "dominatrix", therefore, at first he was all for it because he is into that kind of stuff. However, once he found out it was those hated right wingers he soon changed his tune.
What is pathetic is that Wolf Blitzer didn't even know what dominionism is when the story broke. Way to pay attention Wolf!
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201750
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, because Wolf is a real liberal. Good ol liberal Wolf.
At first Wolf thought they were talking about a "dominatrix", therefore, at first he was all for it because he is into that kind of stuff. However, once he found out it was those hated right wingers he soon changed his tune.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat? Two thumbs down and no response as to why?
Let's be honest here, the term was to smear the Christian right, not to attack other religions like Islam.
The irony here being that Islam contains the only theocracies in the world today with potential ones in the works. If I were to post something about the evils of such Islamic theocracies, the same people here who sing the praises of the evils of the ...[text shortened]... ht in schools while the nation destroys itself in debt. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.
I thought this was a debate forum, not a beauty contest.