Dominionism 101
By Chip Berlet
A series of conferences and seminars focusing on the issue of “dominionism” are being held in New York City by the Graduate Center, CUNY and the New York Open Center
Dominionism is a term popularized by sociologist Sara Diamond. Those, like me, who study the Christian Right use the term to explain a political tendency that has mobilized tens of millions of conservative Christians into public political participation.
The two conferences held to date were extremely successful. Speakers included Karen Armstong, Joan Bokaer, Charles Stroizer, Jeff Sharlet, fellow DefCon blogger Frederick Clarkson, Esther Kaplan, Craig Unger, and myself. The wide range of expertise provided attendees with a broad range of issues related to dominionism: fear and rage in fundamentalist movements; dominionist influence on U.S. policies; the Bush administration’s promotion of theocracy; the relationship between elite fundamentalism and pragmatic dominionism; how to confront the religious right while respecting religious faith; and millennialist and apocalyptic influences on dominionism.
As you can imagine an incredible amount of information came out of these panels and discussions. So much so that I figured it would be worth compiling a mini-crash course on dominionism. Although oversimplified, the following is a summary of the basic definitions and explanations offered in the conference presentations.
-
Christian Conservatives – They play by the rules of a democratic republic, and so our response should be to develop better ideas and carry out better grassroots organizing campaigns.
-
Christian Nationalists – They erode pluralism, and we must defend separation of church and state, but also engage in a discussion of the legitimate boundaries when religious beliefs intersect with participation in a secular civil society.
-
Christian Theocrats – They want to replace democracy with an authoritarian theocratic society run by a handful of Christian men. They seek to supersede the Constitution and Bill of Rights with Old Testament Biblical law. We must oppose them and not give an inch in our defense of democracy against theocracy.
There are more events planned, stay tuned to the Open Center’s website and of course the DefCon blog for more info.
An edited DVD of Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right is now for sale through the NY Open Center. Call 212-219-2527 X 170 or email orders@opencenter.org
An interesting breakdown of the enemies of sustainable civilization. It seems like the truly dangerous ones are those willing to break the rules because they KNOW they’re right. It’s the same excuse the Spanish inquisition used to torture its victims. Torment the flesh until they submit because they believe the torments of the afterlife will be even worse for those who die unforgiven. People can become so enamored with ideas that they loose the common conscience with their fellow humans, and become worse monsters than what they think they’re fighting.
The nice thing about the extremists who are willing to break the rules of civilized society is that they leave a distinctive trail. I wonder if there is some way to get through to the followers of these demagogs. In their zeal to spread the word, they have universally strayed far from the teachings of their savior. Perhaps a well phrased appeal to their followers to return to the path of humility and nonjudgement instead of fire, brimstone, and multi-million dollar megachurches (money that should have gone to charities to help those in need, not to glamorize demagogs and line already too rich pockets).
Surely there must be some well spoken religious leaders who can reclaim their churches from the blood-stained hands of power hungry madmen, and restore dignity and sanity to the church.
A major step that must be taken by all churches should be to embrace the learning of science. The Catholic Church has been a leader in this in the last century. After centuries of bitter struggle, they learned the lesson of the futility of fighting the truth (eg Truth cannot Contradict Truth). I am not religious in the slightest, (so I apologize for invoking God in this paragraph particularly because if the God of the Hebrews exists, He asked that we not use His Name in vain! too bad more of His followers don’t follow suite), but perhaps the language that can be used to appeal to even the deeply religious is that God created nature, and set it in motion to follow intricate rules to perform His purpose. Science is the method through which God’s rules of nature are revealed to man, and as part of His creation, we are subject to His rules. This is of course Newton’s Watchmaker, but perhaps some of the language could be adjusted to appeal more to those who desire some kind of personnal god. Where the rules apparently contradict Biblical content, the Bible must be interpreted as being alegorical and written for the understanding of the less enlightened of centuries past, while we modern humans have the gift of deeper meaning revealed in the light of science. I am in no way supporting ‘intelligent design’ or any such nonsense; I am merely suggesting that the deeply religious may require special language in order to be communicated with effectively. I’m trying to engineer a way to undermine the theocrats’ power base, while simultaneously redirecting the energy of their (former) followers into more productive directions for society. Or at least less destructive. You can’t just tear these people down, you have to tear down AND rebuild, lest they fall to even worse shepherds than the current fundamentalists!
It is so true that religious people should not simply be backed into a corner and not offered a constructive way to reconcile their religious beliefs with the findings of science. There need not be only one way to do this. Language is certainly one way. I very much appreciate your willingness to try to find a way to rebuild rather than just tear down. Very hopeful. Thanks.
Very logical Nazgul. Unfortunately I suspect that we’re dealing not with logic, but with emotion.
Two basic problems. First, many fundamentalist congregations honestly believe in a literal interpretation of an inerrant bible. This forces them to reject, out of hand, any allegorical interpretation of Genesis or any other part of the scriptures.
Let me give you an example of how extreme this can get. Consider the famous quote of Jesus from Matthew 19:24, “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Clearly a hyperbole right? First century Jewish folk sayings are rife with similar hyperboles. Yet some folks are even uncomfortable with the idea of an exaggeration and I’ve had it carefully explained to me how the “eye of a needle” was in fact a gate in Jerusalem through which it was difficult, but possible if you were skillful, to coax a camel.
The second problem is that the current agenda of the Christian Right consists of emotional issues that good and honest folks have been convinced present a threat to themselves or their families. They’ve been bombarded by the fear mongers with statements about how “evolution breeds atheism,” “gay marriage will lead to the end of the traditional family,” “crime is rising as morality deteriorates” “Christianity is being persecuted.” “YOUR child’s salvation is at stake” and so on and so forth. It’s easy to tell a lie and, if you repeat it often enough, eventually people will start to believe it. It’s a heck of a lot more complicated to explain why it’s a lie.
The fear mongers have done a pretty fair job of propaganda AND, either in a stroke of genius or luck, have managed to mix all the issues into interrelated mush. They actually will tell you, and have convinced some folks, that compromising on ANYTHING is a compromise on everything. In other words accepting evolution is morally equivalent to murdering fetuses through abortion. I’ve had this position justified to me by quoting James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
To further complicate things, human nature being what it is, the more of a commitment people have had to a given position, the harder it is for them to accept it might be wrong. It is also sometimes difficult for many of these folks to reject the teachings of people they consider to be “men of God” and trust. A claim made by a fair number of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right. I suspect that getting them to accept that their trust has been betrayed is going to be tough.
Have you ever wondered how anyone can reject, often out of hand, what we would consider overwhelming scientific evidence? Much of it can be explained by Paul’s paraphrase of Isaiah 29:14 in 1 Corinthians 1:19, “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
In other words DON’T let earthly knowledge, including scientific knowledge, lead you astray. The truth is found in the scriptures. It really is an incredibly effective meme with a built in defense against any external assault.
This is a REALLY tough nut to crack. Two hours of conversation with a good Apologist can have you doubting your own sanity.
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, remember that the Vatican tends to be Eurocentric and religion is taking an absolute pounding in Europe. If you consider recent statements from the Reverend George Coyne, Cardinal Paul Poupard and even Cardinal Schoenborn, the Vatican is sort of offering a quid pro quo. Science should keep its nose out of religion’s domain and not claim it can prove that God was unnecessary and religion will happily stay out of science’s domain. Religion is in a MUCH stronger position at the current moment in the US and some sects don’t seem to have any intention of letting science teach, unchallenged, something that they believe contradicts scripture.
Note to Alencon:
DefCon America pledges to “fight for the separation of church and state, individual freedom, scientific progress, pluralism, and tolerance while respecting people of faith and their beliefs”
How does your choice of language and tone reflect the idea of “respecting people of faith and their beliefs?”
How we will reach a broad audience of our fellow citizens using your type of rhetoric and argument?
Maybe it is just me, but as a progressive Christian, I am offended by your post.
I certainly defend your right to post such sentiments, but I can also point out when I feel attacked and dismissed and belittled as a person of faith.
Perhaps if you would specifically identify what has you concerned I could answer. I was explaining why it is often difficult to get some folks to accept scienctific conclusions.
Do you disagree that these are common positions? What exactly do you find dismissive or belittling? That some “good and honest” people have been misled by leaders of the right, that people “honestly believe” in certain things and can justify those beliefs through scripture or that people will fight against having their children taught things they feel contradict their beliefs?
How about we get down to specific cases. If I have offended I will apologize but you have to give me something a little better than “type of rhetoric and argument” or a general problem with “language and tone.”
Alencon: “we’re dealing not with logic, but with emotion.”
Chip’s response: Dismissive of the possibility that my believe is a faith that is outside of scientific logic and not necessarily in conflict, and the implication that faith is an emotional crutch or disabling problem to be solved.
Alencon: “Let me give you an example of how extreme this can get” regarding the “eye of the needle” quote,
“Clearly a hyperbole right?”
Chip’s response: So if I believe it is a clever metaphor about navigating a camel through a small gate I am an idiot, right? Clearly a buffoon. Who could believe that? Well, I do.
Alencon: “In other words DON’T let earthly knowledge, including scientific knowledge, lead you astray. The truth is found in the scriptures. It really is an incredibly effective meme with a built in defense against any external assault.”
Chip’s response: For some this is perhaps true, but some of us think we can find truth in the holy texts of many world religions, and don’t think of ourselves as defensive morons.
Alencon: “Two hours of conversation with a good Apologist can have you doubting your own sanity.”
Chip’s response: Two hours of listening to someone denounce religion as the opiate of the masses gives me a headache, and makes me disinclined to take anything they say seriously.
:-)
Well like Mark Twain said, it’s differences of opinion that make horse races. You will notice that I was criticizing specific interpretations of scripture and not the scripture itself.
You consider these observations ridiculing and dismissive, I consider them facing the reality of the situation. Nazgul was suggesting that a “major step that must be taken by all churches should be to embrace the learning of science.”
I was pointing out why that doesn’t sound like something that’s going to happen. That I would find reasons for rejecting science to be less than rational should be no great surprise. Is it you don’t like to hear opinions expressed that conflict with yours or you don’t like to hear any criticism of faith?
Never mind, it’s irrelevent. It was not my intent to demean or ridicule the interpretations. Obviously, since I don’t accept the bible as scripture, whether they are correct or not is pretty much irrlevent to me and one interpretation is as good as another.
We’re never going to be anything but enemies. You believe that religion has value and I don’t. You believe you can carry on a polite dialogue with folks who are convinced they are doing God’s work and I’m convinced you’ll get no where with that approach.
When religion stayed within its domain of home and church it was harmless and could be ignored because that lovely wall of seperation protected the rest of us. Now that it has moved into the public domain, is trying to eliminate that wall and since, according to “those of faith,” I’m going to burn for all eternity in hell anyway, I see no particular reason to be careful about not saying things that might be considered criticizing, belittling or demeaning to “those of faith.”
Yes sir, I really need to be more concerned about saying things that could be interpreted as “demeaning” by those who say flat out that I’m doomed to an eternity of hell fire. Yup, I’ll put that one right at the top of my “to do” list.
Clearly my position is incompatible with the preferred attitude of this organization. That’s ok, I learned a long time ago that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I wish you luck.
Have a nice day.
I thought we were trying to have a conversation. You asked me to name specifics. I did. I didn’t try to offend you, but just answer your question honestly. We don’t have to agree to work together. That was what I was trying to point out. Ways we can disagree while being sensitive to not alienating a potential ally.
Chip Bertlet’s strong reactions to Alencon’s comments surprise me. Reading Alencon’s original post (before things heated up), I did not get the impression that he was pointing at mainstream, open-minded, Democracy-loving Christians, of which, I am sure, Mr. Bertlet is one..
Take, for example, this comment: “In other words DON’T let earthly knowledge, including scientific knowledge, lead you astray. The truth is found in the scriptures. It really is an incredibly effective meme with a built in defense
against any external assault.” He is pointing to what we know as the Religious Right, which includes many of the groups categorized in that Dominionism 101 course who are working towards creating a theocratic state, and he is giving us insight into what makes them tick. Sure he’s dismissive of those people, and well he should be. Shouldn’t we all be? Or are those “emotions” that Alencon referred to getting in the way.
Part of what I am trying to do is explore ways in which use of language isolates us from a broader audience. I am trying to illustrate a particular problem that can happen when language is not carefully crafted. In addition, when someone who is a person of faith simply states they are offended by particular language, should not our first, respectful, response be something like: “I certainly did not mean to cause offense, but I feel my criticicisms are valid, is there particular language that bothered you?”
Then we can briefly discuss the language, find different ways to make our case, smooth over ruffled feathers, and continue the conversation with a focus on our criticism. Is that what happened here? I don’t think so, but perhaps I am wrong. How would you have handled this situation in a public setting?
Chip the only problem with what you advocate, is that while we are over trying to find language to “bridge the gap” their leaders are preaching that pluralism is evil and should not be tolerated and that there is no such thing as a wall of separation between church and state and that America should be a Christian nation with a Christian government. They started with an immense advantage and our willing to pull no punches, but yet we are to be careful not to offend them and their beliefs.
I admit its hard to remain true to the virtues of tolerance and pluralism while combating those who advocate the destruction of such ideas.
I think part of the problem is the confusion of their leaders with the average follower. How do we effectively communicate with them when their emotions are so strongly attached to their doctrine and that of their leaders. When any criticism is perceived as a threat or a form of persecution and their leaders willingly play up this card how do you create a bridge to them that basically says “your anti-pluralistic ways are wrong and against what America stands for.”
Exactly the problem! And it is not easy, and can be very frustrating. So if we are speaking to followers, not leaders, we have to learn to anticipate their preliminary reactions, which will most likely be negative.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought you would be interested in this Dominionist: Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.
Katherine Yurica recently de-constructed Blackwell’s “Uncommon Sense” (posted with tax $$$ on the Ohio SOS website at http://tinyurl.com/ard9q). Her article, “Blackwell’s Un-American Scheme: Under the Guise of “Character and Civic Renewal” Ohio State Foists a Religious Moral Code upon Its Citizens” (read at The Yurica Report - http://tinyurl.com/9d2ef) she explains “Blackwell speaks candidly. It is a revolution in a deceptively pretty package. Hidden in its paragraphs are concepts of submission, obedience, inspection of the personal lives of people, and the loss of personal rights and freedom that would make America’s founding fathers stand on their heads in their graves. In short it is a Dominionist document: a religious treatise in secular terms, but dominionist to the core. It’s a brilliant little package to get millions of evangelical Christians and their friends to accept authoritarian government without even a whisper of protest.”
She continues, “It’s so deceptively written that people of other faiths or avowed atheists won’t know they are accepting religious tenets—that in fact it is a rational interpretation of some Christian ethics and as such it’s nothing less than a concise theological document in drag. Christians, however, will “know” it’s “Christian” because the unknown authors of the little tract[11] have salted the mine with recognizable terms and barely disguised Bible verses.”
Please read this entire detailed critique. Perhaps you can get Ms. Yurica to attend and/or speak at the next conference. I find it terrifying that this man wants to be Ohio’s next governor. People need to know about
Blackwell’s Dominionist views. As we approach the 2006 elections, this story needs to see the light of day in a BIG way. As you may know, Blackwell is a strong supporter of the Ohio Restoration Project and its “Patriot Pastors” (see article in the Cincinatti Enquirer http://tinyurl.com/7kv6l ). I wonder if we can get this group’s tax-exempt status revoked.
Thanks for the great article and website.
imbillorightsmanandiapprovethismessage
Chip, I thought Alencon was very careful in his original post, to target those exploiting, twisting, or misusing religion, or their dupes, and not religion itself. With regard to the former, he is right–there is no compromising, no language of inclusion that they will respect as anything other than hedging. Following a class discussion about evolution, I was told by certain neighbors not to let my son play with their children, because we consider ourselves monkeys and they don’t want to associate with monkeys. Where is the room for inclusion with people like that?
Your “examples” were all examples of criticisms that were surely not directed at you; you simply chose to take them personally. Oh well, while we are all arguing with each other, the trogs are taking over, school district by school district.
Charles, I took the comments personally, and I wanted to see if it was possible for Alencon to have a courteous discussion with someone who said they had been offended by his words and his tone. I was offended. The test resulted in a clear answer. If Alencon cannot have a civil conversation with me, a potential ally, what chance do we have to challenge the Christian Right in the many towns and cities across the nation? Do people here on this website want to feel superior and self-righteous, or do we want to be effective? Your choice, my friend. Democracy is a group game, and civil discourse is supposed to be something to which we aspire.
Charles Hsu writes: Where is the room for inclusion with people like that?
We better find room for inclusion with people like that, or we likely to end up shooting at one another before too long. Today, it’s: “Keep your kids out of the playground.” That could easily escalate: “Keep your kids out of the playground if you know what’s good for them.” I applaud attempts to relieve the pressures that could lead to such an escalation.
Chip, I’ve been long acquainted with your work via Orcinus, and am fascinated by this conference. If you’re planning another one, I’d love to be there.
I grew up fundie and spent many adult years working with people leaving the faith. That experience has convinced me that the problem goes far deeper than we’ll be able to drill by just being civil and watching our semantics (though those steps are, indeed, a good start).
You had Karen Armstrong there; and therefore you’re probably familiar with The Fundamentalist Project’s conclusion (which she popularized) that fundamentalist religion takes root because people feel threatened by a world that’s changing too fast for them. My observation is that this principle works on both the community and individual level; and my observation has been that you cannot get people out of the fundamentalist logic box until you address this fear at its roots.
On a community level, fundamentalism flourishes wherever jobs, money, and opportunity vanish. It’s not a coincidence we’re seeing the rise in Dominionism, nationalism, and other forms of authoritarian religion just as the American middle class is reaching its lowest ebb in history. People have lost their options. Inthe absence of decent educational opportunities, they turn to superstition. Where there is no accessible medical care, they turn to prayer. When they feel persecuted by government, they look to a higher authority. When they’re angry and frustrated, fundamentalism gives them hope, structure, and a channel for their emotions. Look at it this way, and it becomes a semi-reasonable response to the otherwise unreasonable situation that more and more Americans now find themselves in.
The fastest way to break that spell is to reverse these trends with policies aimed at resurrecting the middle classes. We need better schools, more access to college, universal health care, and government that works on behalf of working people. Until that happens, we can probably talk until we’re blue in the face. Jesus himself said that you can’t fill people’s ears until you’ve fed their bellies.
On an individual level — well, any good missionary will tell you that the best time to convert somebody is when they’ve just sustained some huge setback or loss — job, health, marriage, a family member. When everything feels out of control, the black-and-white legalism and ready-made community become incredibly attractive.
Conversely, people start to move away from these structures when they feel whole and competent, and are confident in their ability to manage their own lives and think for themselves without relying on church authority. If you want to create appealing language, speaking in frames that reduce feelings of fear and loss and replace them with a sense of worldly competence is probably the best way to bring them back to the reality-based world.
Thanks for the quick summary. It’s stunning how many educated Americans are completely, willfully clueless about this enormous faction — or dismissive of it when they do rub up against it. It’s a dangerous denial, and anything we can do to explain and translate the threat is useful.
“The laughter of Mordor is our only reward if we quarrel.” JRRT
Remember who the enemy is, there’s no reason to pick fights amongst a necessarily pluralistic group.
cheap viagra
news