Dominionism in America

Mahoney at dailykos has an excellent ongoing series of diaries on Dominionism, and its adherents' goals for America...it ain't pretty. Some key graphs (that don't necessarily flow together, being from separate posts):

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part I
Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part II
Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part III

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part I

[...]
Rousas John Rushdoony, generally considered the father of "Christian Reconstructionism" (a type of Dominionism), published The Institutes of Biblical Law in 1973, in which he argued for the application of biblical laws to modern society, i.e., a theocracy. Chip Berlet at Talk to Action describes Dominionism as follows:

Open advocates of dominionism declare that "America is a Christian Nation," and that therefore Christians have a God-given mandate to re-assert Christian control over political, social, and cultural institutions. Yet many dominionists stop short of staking out a position that could be called theocratic. This is the "soft" version of dominionism.

The "hard" version of dominionism is explicitly theocratic or "theonomic," as the Christian Reconstructionists prefer to be called. For America, it is a distinction without a difference.

[...]

The split between conservative and liberal Protestant Christians can be traced to the earliest days of the European Enlightenment. The introduction of the historical-critical method into the academic study of the Bible quickly sparked a raging controversy in European theology departments. Conservative theologians rejected the historical-critical method as an illegitimate intrusion of a secular science into the sacred realm. Liberal theologians welcomed the new method as a valuable tool for better understanding the texts of the Bible in a modern world. Conservative theologians clung to various doctrines of inspiration, maintaining that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, literally true in its individual parts and as a whole. Historical criticism called that claim into question, and theologians who employed the historical-critical method discovered many factual errors and discrepancies between the various books of the Bible (consider the example of the Beatitudes, which Jesus delivers on a mountain in Matthew and on a plain in Luke), as well as clear evidence of multiple sources, editors, and revisions within the biblical texts themselves (this from the sub-disciplines of historical criticism known as source, form, and redaction criticism).

[...]

For these conservative Protestants, the Bible was the only authority in all matters of faith and life, and its directives were unambiguous. It was simply a matter of assent to this authority and application of biblical principles in one's life. Liberal Protestants, on the other hand, sought to learn from the sciences, philology, philosophy, and many other academic disciplines, as well as developing what they called a "canon within the canon" of the Bible. In other words, not all parts of the Bible were considered equal. Martin Luther, the 16th-century Reformer, already used this type of critical thinking in his use of the Bible, arguing that what is essential in the Bible is was Christum treibt - "whatever preaches Christ." Everything in the Bible must be weighed against its proclamation of God's gracious love in Christ. Those passages that correspond to what Luther called "the gospel" are given more weight than those passages that do not. The conservatives, on the other hand, considered every word of the Bible to be just as important and essential as the next - there was and could be no distinctions, because every word is the literal Word of God. Furthermore, any attempt to apply critical methods to the Bible was seen as tantamount to a rejection of God.

[...]

One feature of the modern conservative resurgence that is of special concern to us here is the insistence on the Christian roots of the United States. The belief that the United States is a "Christian nation" lies at the root of many of the positions taken by the Dominionists in particular over the last several years. And this booklet, America, Return to God, is a good representation of this type of thinking.

[more]

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part II

[...]

America, Return to God is an example of a conservative use of Scripture, in which there is no distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament as sources for Christian theology, and in which every word and phrase is understood to be the literal, inspired Word of God. It is also an example of a particular reading of American history: the Founders clearly intended for the United States to be a "Christian Nation," regularly calling upon God in public prayer, referring to God in speeches and inaugural addresses, and favoring Christian morality as the bedrock of American civilization. We must remember these two basic perspectives on the Bible and American history as we work our way through the essays to follow.

[...]

The religious freedom granted in many of the American colonies was a natural corollary to the application of Enlightenment principles in the political realm. There is no need here to rehearse the Enlightenment roots of the American political system. We are well aware of this history. But Black suggests that it is the Left that is sowing the seeds of Enlightenment rebellion and threatening to destroy American civilization, never pausing to remember that it is the Enlightenment tradition itself that gave us our system of government in the first place. Black provides the standard list of areas in which American is being destroyed by secularism: morality, culture, justice, education, sexuality and the family, democracy, etc., all of which he attributes to the triumph of secular, Enlightenment principles:

The mindset of the sixties is still with us, as values and beliefs that were once cherished in this nation are being discredited by the left.

[Snip]

Obviously, a large number of Americans still cherish our Christian heritage, and faith is still strong in many places. But for a growing number, the enlightenment view of reality has become their accepted worldview. For them, moral consensus no longer depends on Christian truths, but on secular values. (Black, 30)

Emphasis in original

In this forum we have discussed the relationship between religion and morality ad nauseam. Is religion a prerequisite for morality? My answer to this question is a resounding "No." "Morality" in its most basic sense refers to a code of conduct. "Religion" in its most basic sense refers to a way of understanding the world and one's place in it, with particular reference to an Other. In terms of these definitions, then, religion is a much broader category than morality. Most religions encourage morality, but not all morality is necessarily religious. In other words, it is possible to be moral without being religious. Consider the case of the "Golden Rule," a particular moral command that, with slight variations, transcends cultural boundaries: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is nothing inherently religious about the Golden Rule, and one need not be religious to follow it. There are many more examples, but this one should suffice to demonstrate my contention that religion is not a prerequisite for morality.

This does not even begin to address Black's more specific claim that morality is limited to Christianity. According to his view, one must first believe in Jesus Christ in order to be a moral person. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Unitarians, Wiccans, Animists, Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists and a host of others in this view are inherently incapable of morality because they do not believe in Jesus Christ. According to this belief, then, some of the great moral figures of history - one need only think of Gandhi - were in fact immoral because they were not Christian. Clearly this is a position to be rejected.

Finally, Black addresses what he considers to be the failure of the Enlightenment:

The secular humanism that was supposed to liberate mankind from his enslavement to the past has bred not liberty, but atheism wedded with hedonism, which has resulted in a chronicle of devastated lives that boggles the mind.

[Snip]

In general, the left does not care about women, independent judiciaries, minorities, democracy, gays or almost anything else for which it marches. That is why the left opposed the war in Afghanistan, which liberated women from being treated like animals. Nearly all the causes the left speaks for are noble-sounding covers for its real agenda - the overthrowing of Western, especially Judeo-Christian and capitalist, values. (Black, 35)

Second paragraph attributed, without citation, to Dennis Prager.

[more]

At this point I can only say go read the remainder, because the analysis and history is too good and too much to pull out segments. And also, if there is a better example of projection than that second paragraph, I have yet to see it. Amazing.

Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part III

[...]

In this short installment we will explore an essay by the editor, Thomas Wang (dubbed

"The Chinese Billy Graham"), entitled "The Neo-Pagan Drift."

Unfortunately, Wang never defines what he means by "neo-paganism," preferring to allow the term to speak for itself. As we work through this short essay, we will soon see, however, that by "neo-paganism" Wang simply means any philosophy or ideology that is not explicitly rooted in conservative Protestant Christianity:

In America today, a gigantic force is advancing swiftly and cunningly among every walk of life (including some Christian churches). We call this devastating impetus the Neo-Pagan Drift.

If there be a day that America should decline and fall, it would not be due to enemy missiles or nuclear attack from the outside, but because of this neo-pagan drift from within America herself! (Wang, 56)

This "neo-pagan drift" is the reason for all of America's ills, as Wang repeatedly laments that America could again be great if only it would

go through a nation-wide self-examination, under the search light of the Spirit of God on her national purpose, integrity and allegiance to Jesus Christ. (Wang, 56)

It has been said here many times, and, sadly, it must be said again: America IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Christian nation. The fact that a majority of Americans may self-identify as Christian does not make America a Christian nation. Any such claim is expressly forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America owes no allegiance to Jesus Christ. America owes allegiance only to its own Constitution, to the rule of law, and to the protection of the right of every citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[...]

What is most alarming in this collection of truly alarming statements by Wang is his claim that the Constitution must be subordinated to what he calls the "Constitution of God which governs the whole universe." (I can only surmise that he means the Bible here - I've been studying theology for almost 10 years and I've never heard of "God's Constitution.")

Let us be reminded that high above the Constitution of the United States is the CONSTITUTION of God which governs the whole universe! Dare we tamper with it! If prayer and Bible reading in our public schools are "unconstitutional," then our Constitution is unconstitutional under the Sovereign God! (Wang, 57)

Here we arrive at the true agenda of the Dominionists. First they attempt to demonstrate a relationship between what they consider to be an unprecedented decline in American morality and the "de-Christianization" of America. Next, they attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to emphasize its "Christian" character and issue a call for renewal. Finally, they call for theocracy. If the Constitution is shown to be "unbiblical" and incompatible with extreme conservative Protestant Christianity, then American constitutional democracy must be abolished and replaced with biblical law.

Wang finally turns to public education as the prime example of America's decline:

Higher education today serves only to build up an apology for atheism. Christian young people today continually confront human theories against the Bible; Darwin's Evolution or God's Creation? We are not leading our young people to God through our current educational system.

[Snip]

Our educational system should be operated on a God-honoring basis. The knowledge and faith in God should be taught to our students starting from kindergarten. (Wang, 57)

This is the true intention of the Dominionists: replace the secular with the religious in every sphere of public life, including public education. If the Establishment Clause forbids "leading our young people to God" through the public school curriculum, then the Establishment Clause should be overturned.

The Dominionists are not content to limit religious education to the home and the church; it must be the priority of the public schools as well. Never mind that there are adherents of other religious traditions also attending public schools. If they do not confess Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior, they must be converted. Never mind that the purpose of public education is to prepare citizens for life in the secular democracy that is the United States. If American doesn't soon "return to God," it will be destroyed.

Again, these Dominionist positions are rooted in the claim for Christian absolutism and exclusivity. (I hasten to add here that not all Christian absolutists are Dominionists. But all Dominionists are Christian absolutists.) According to this way of thinking, Christianity is the sole "true" religion, and therefore all other religions are "false" and, by extension, manifestations of evil or, as Wang puts it, "neo-paganism." Dominionists are not interested in religious pluralism of any type, nor are they interested in dialogue with other religious traditions or peaceful co-habitation. They are interested in conversion and in a Christian government with free license to evangelize its citizens with public funds and public means.

[...]

That's why the radical right can't stand universities - they teach people critical thinking and how to get beyond the frames of religion. How dare anyone question the authority of God. Therefore, religion (specifically this brand of Christianity) must get 'em young and indoctrinate them into the cult of Christianity. Can't have the rubes actually learning of other ways to worship (or not worship).