Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Dominionists: An Informal Guide
mick arran printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 11:27:55 PM EST
This post comes out of a discussion begun on 'Corporate America and Theocracy'. In comments to that post, it seemed to me that there was a good deal of confusion about the differences between Dominionists, fundamentalists, and evangelicals, possibly because most of us are none of the three and looking on from the outside. I thought it might help us to start defining our ground if I tried to describe what I see as the differences from a non-expert. outsider's perspective.


Historically, it seems to me that the evangelical movement in America most probably has its roots in the tail end of the 19th century after the Civil War. Between 1870 and the turn of the century, a large number of 'utopian' religious societies and--let's call them what they were--cults sprang up around the country. The Oneidans of the Northeast, the snakehandlers in the South, the Shakers, the Spiritualists, and even Joseph Smith's Mormons in the West all had elements of what eventually evolved into evagelicism after WW I when there was an explosion of healers and itinerant preachers a la Elmer Gantry.  That's when the emotional 'testifying' that had long been a feature of black churches back to slavery began to appear in 'Revival Meetings' that were mostly white.

To some degree, the vibrant emotional responses in evangelical services were probably a reponse to the dry intellectualism and heavy social component of mainstream Christian churches at the time. Eastern society, for example, was divided not just by wealth but by church affiliation, and even members of New York's 400 could be cut off from Society if they didn't go to an approved church. The churches of which Society approved tended to be bloodless, unthreatening, Sunday-only events where sin was rarely mentioned unless it was the 'sin' of poverty, and well-heeled members of the upper crust never had to fear sermons about the money lenders in the temple or the 'eye of the needle'.

Revival Meetings were exactly the opposite.They demanded that you, as a parishioner, have a personal relationship with Christ that was more like he was a member of your immediate family than an accountant you hired to balance your checkbook, and it wasn't enough that you had such a relationship--or said you did--you had to 'testify' to it, share it with the rest of the Congregation. To an evangelical of the 20's and 30's, a 'private' relationship with Jesus was a sign that you were suffering from the sin of Pride, cutting yourself off from the rest of your Brothers and Sisters in Christ so as to have him all to yourself. It isn't an accident that treating someone who refused to share that relationship as if they were hoarding food that belonged to everybody reached its height during the Depression.

That emotional, very personal relationship with the Saviour remains a a defining characteristic of evangelicism. Evangelicals come in all stripes, sizes and beliefs but they have a number of things in common that help set them apart to the outsider, and that's Number 1.

1) 'Jesus lives in my house.' Evangelicals often talk of a 'living Christ', as if Jesus was present in their lives every day, guiding them. They quote the New Testament as often as the Old Testament, and the Sermon on the Mount is a big one. Conservative evangelicals quote the OT more often but they all believe that Jesus must be experienced in a real way as a force in their lives.

2) 'Spread the Good News.' An important component of evangelical belief is the idea that they have not just a duty but a responsibility to bring the 'Living Christ' alive for others. Proselytizing is an integral part of their faith for most evangelicals. It's what they're on earth to do--'share' their personal experience with Christ in order to convince others to do likewise.

This component undoubtedly comes from the previous age (see above) and would seem to militate against evangelicals adopting the kind of closed-off, Us v Them insularity so common to fundamentalist sects. But Lorie Johnson commented that she sees a growing insularity throughout 'Christian culture'.

I've learned in my studies that the moderan Christian culture occupies a parallel universe of sorts, walled off from secular culture in a way that most mainstream people would find surprising. They homeschool, they have their own books, music, entertainment, social circles- even their own financial advice people. If you belong to a megachurch, you can pretty much get all the things you want or need right on the campus. I found a link to a blog called Sheepwatch on another post, and the writer nails it:
"Jesus said to be fishers of men but too many Pastors had turned into being keepers of the aquarium."
It's a very insular world, and very much an echo chamber. Note how uniform a lot of their websites, sermons, and press releases are? That is deliberate. It's more for their members than for us. The aquarium comparison is especially apt when you see all this stuff targeted at them. They're literally a captive audience.
Maybe, but it seems to me that would fly in the face of evagelicism's historic mission to reach out. If that is indeed what's happening, I would have to take it as a sign that some evangelicals have moved much closer to fundamentalism than I had thought, and that's not a good thing.

3) 'Born again.' I may be wrong but my experience with evangelicals is that being born-again is something wished-for, something desired, perhaps, but not something that is required. You don't have to be born-again to be an evangelical...but it helps.


Though fundamentalists share a lot of the attributes characteristic of evangelicals, there are a couple of important differences.

1) 'Mine eyes have seen the Glory....' You'll notice that I didn't add 'literal belief in the Bible' to the above list. That's because some evangelicals believe it and some don't--probably more don't than do. In any case, once again, it isn't required. With the fundamentalists, though, it is.

In order to be a fundamentalist, you MUST believe in the literal truth of the Bible--that Jonah was swallowed by an actual whale, that the sun actually stopped in the heavens when Joshua blew his trumpet at Jericho, that Lot's wife was turned into a physical pillar of salt. For a fundamentalist, the word 'Bible' and the word 'metaphor' do not belong in the same sentence. That belief in the literalness of Biblical stories is what defines fundamentalism--if you don't have it, you can't be one. Period.

2) 'My way or the highway.' If evangelicals believe in proselytizing, fundamentalists believe in conversion. It's an important distinction. Where evangelicals want to 'spread the word', fundamentalists demand that you obey the word. Now. Or else.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists both believe that they live in an imperfect world, a world ruled more by Satan than by God, but their responses to that belief couldn't be further apart. The evangelical wants to sell you something in the hope/belief that doing so will make the world a more godly place. The fundamentalist wants to force the world to conform to his belief primarily because he finds it intolerable to live in a world which does not. Thus the closing-off that Lorie talks about, the Us v Them separation we're all familiar with, is much more likely to be a dominant feature of fundamentalists than evangelicals.

By these defintions, I think it's quite clear that Lorie is wrong when she says, 'Think about Jimmy Carter. He's a fundamentalist Born Again Baptist, but he's not a Dominionist.' Carter may be a born-again Baptist but he is most certainly neither a fundamentalist nor a Dominionist. He is an evangelical, and a liberal one at that. Psyche said it better than I could.

Not sure about assumption that fundamentalists "generally prefer to keep to themselves." What they tend to share is belief in literal interpretation of the bible. Beyond that, suspect there is a range in degree of activism. Certainly, many of them function as foot soldiers for religious right groups such as FOF, AFA, PTC, Promise Keepers, etc. This group can be extremely active in terms of e-mail, letter-writing, phone campaigns and, at times, demonstrating.

Also not sure that Jimmy Carter is representative - or would pass a strict fundamentalist test. He does identify himself as an evangelical - a group that includes social conservatives and liberals.

Both were responding to Chip Berlet's suggestion that there are as many different types of fundamentalists as there are different types of evangelicals.
There are a wide variety of fundamentalists, some of whom are unhappy with dominionism in general and the Christian Right in particular. So I was trying to tease the categories apart...
With this, I can't agree. In my experience, fundamentalists come in only two categories: open theocrats and potential theocrats. I have never been able to identify any significant differences between the various fundamentalist sects. Logically, it would make sense that I couldn't: a literal belief in the Bible doesn't leave much room for variation. It's a binary world in which either you do or you don't and if you don't, you don't belong. But I'm open to learning different if Chip wants to expand on his statement.

3) 'Gimme that Old Time Religion...' Fundamentalism virtually ignores the New Testament message of forgiveness and tolerance in order to embrace the Old Testament message of revenge and intolerance. Fundamentalists are easily twice as likely to quote OT scripture to prove their point than NT scripture. As I've said elsewhere, their Jesus is a Warrior with great powers and very little interest in forgiving anybody anything.

The fundamentalist Christ has been re-imagined and re-defined through the prism of the Old Testament. He is a Fire-God of anger and revenge, the opposite of everything we used to think Christ stood for. He has little time for the poor, tolerates only the narrowest possible definition of 'Christian', seethes with righteous hatred of outsiders, is intolerant of those with different views, and despises wimps--he will come the next time clutching a sword in one hand and a .45 caliber automatic in the other.
And he'll use them. Against non-believers.

Theocrats (Dominionists/Reconstructionists)

Dominionists can be very simply defined as fundamentalists who have taken the next step: they are actively working to make a world they can live in. That is the only difference between them that I can see. Otherwise, they believe the same things for the same reasons and feel the same way fundamentalists do, only more so, and they've decided to do something about it.


Obviously I've provided lines of demarkation that are far more fluid than I've made them sound. My intention is only to provide a base from which we can begin to understand the differences between the three groups so we don't, as Chip correctly fears, start lumping them together.

But I must add that, personally, I see little significant difference between fundamentalists and Dominionists. They are natural allies. Their belief systems are the same and they are equally intolerant of diversity in any of its forms: religious, social, educative, or even scientific (witness the ID absurdity and the 'War on Christmas' idiocy). The only thing that separates them is that one group believes it has a better chance of getting what it wants if it makes its own insular world to live in, apart from Satan's influence, while the other is determined to parlay its power into forcing the creation of a godly society in which it is comfortable for its believers to live because everyone is made to believe what they believe and live as they want to live. 'Diversity'--which they experience as Satan's sword plunged into their heart--would be forever banished and the comforting sameness of autocratic uniformity would become the rule rather than the exception.

That's a very thin line, and it is this that makes them so dangerous. The fundamentalist community is growing, and as it does it provides Dominionists with acres of potential recruits. The evangelicals are a whole different ball game.

It's a really informative post - should be helpful on this site.

Got a chuckle when you said:

The fundamentalist wants to force the world to conform to his belief primarily because he finds it intolerable to live in a world which does not.

Seems to hit the nail on the head.

My sense is that the "old-time" evangelicals seek to influence by setting an example (e.g., Carter, Wallis) rather than demanding that others conform. For fundamentalists, control is the big issue. I'm also concerned that, for many of them, the Civil War ain't over yet and that racism underlies a lot of the expressed hatred. Problem is, it's not PC to bash Blacks now so they've shifted their attention to gays, abortion (women), illegal immigrants, and anyone else that isn't "like them" (i.e., white male). However, the veiled racism can surface quickly again as it did after Katrina.  

Suspect a lot of the fundamentalist foot-soldiers are poorer and less well educated and not very well equipped to deal with a rapidly changing and shrinking world. This has made them vulnerable to dominionist leaders with whom they can identify and who give them the illusion of power. Wouldn't be surprised if there hasn't been a dramatic shift from fundamentalist to dominionist ideology for many but don't have statistics. Have difficulty viewing the dominionist leaders as other than slick, greedy, and opportunistic politicians.

The following quote seems to sum up their sentiments pretty well:

The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.

Today Christians... stand at the head of [our country].
I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in
literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result
of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Problem is, this isn't one of our dominionist leaders speaking - it was Adolph Hitler

by Psyche on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 03:42:36 AM EST

The thing is...many of the groups that are classified as "evangelical" by people would also fit the definition of fundamentalist.  (As I've noted quite a number of times, one of the earliest and most active denominations in the dominionist movement is the Assemblies of God, which is traditionally considered an evangelical pentecostal group.)

Myself, I think it's more of a degree of the coercion that exists in the group in general.  And in a number of these groups--especially, sadly, those in the pentecostal and charismatic movements--they have gone quite coercive indeed.

There is still an emphasis on converting people--only because of the bad reputations of these groups, they have resorted to "bait and switch" evangelism, often termed "stealth evangelism" within the community (this is why the AOG has over forty front groups, for instance).

As far as actually associating with people outside the church, though, it's taught explicitly that people should not have any relationships with people outside the church unless it's for the purpose of converting them (in some cases, it's even taught that, say, debating critics of dominionism will cause them to be demonised).  In dominionist churches into "premillenial dispensationalism" this has also resulted in a very strong thread of "conspiracy-ism" in where it is taught that, quite literally, it is the church against the rest of the world and the rest of us are crawling with demons.

This has resulted in an entire parallel economy springing up (this is what Lorie is noting)--directories such as the Christian Yellow Pages exist (which require the explicit signing of a statement of faith before joining--the original Christian Yellow Pages was started by an AoG-associated group in the early 70's and several similar directories now exist), "alternate media" (such as the massive radio and television "godcasting" empires that the AoG has been a part of since, quite literally, the beginnings of televangelism in radio in the 1910s) which has now expanded to "Christian Mini-Dish" providers like Sky Angel/Dominion, "Christian Financial Services", "Christian Counseling" (promoted as an alternative to "secular", "Godless" psychiatry and which uses techniques almost identical in parts to Scientology's worst coercive tactics), etc.

The only use anyone outside the church is seen as is as a source for "fresh meat" for the church.  Convertees are really not seen as people, and in fact newly converted members are even encouraged not to try to interact with non-members as they are still "new in Christ" and interaction with critics could cause them to walk away.

As the "independent charismatic" churches are only now starting to be thought of as fundamentalist per se, I'd say there is overlap.  There are also a few groups of pentecostals and charismatics that disagree with the coercive tactics, but generally they have had to leave and go to mainstream denominations or become independent practitioners.

by dogemperor on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 08:06:01 AM EST

Couldn't correct the comment with Jimmy Carter listed as a fundementalist, but I note that you saw that error and corrected it. He's properly an evangelical, not a fundementalist.

Here's something I use as a measuring stick in trying to determine the 'flavor' of Christianity that these various (and numerous) sects practice- I visit their webpages if they have one, and look at the mission statement.

If they put the supremacy and infallibility of the Bible first, then they're fundementalists. If they put their belief in God and Christ first, then they're evangelicals.

When I see the Bible listed even before God in these creeds/mission statements, I have to wonder if they've bothered to read the very book they appear to place above God- particularly the admonishment not to have 'any God Before Me'. It seems like they see the Bible as being above God in their consideration. I've used the word 'biblolators' (bible-worshipers) to describe such beliefs.

I think that in the order of religious intensity, from mildest to most threatening, it should be ordered as

Dominion Theology
Christian Reconstructionism
Theonomy (God's Law- total Biblical adherence)

by Lorie Johnson on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 09:54:57 AM EST

Where does your guide put Pentecostal, charismatic and nondemonational churches?

Joan Bokaer

by Joan Bokaer on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 04:42:48 PM EST

Myself, I think largely it would depend on the level of "fundamentalist-ness".  A lot of pentecostal and "independent charismatic" groups do cross the line into overt dominionism, though, and a very good argument can be made that the modern dominionist movement originated within "independent charismatic" and pentecostal churches, in particular the Assemblies of God and large charismatic megachurches that were heavily influenced by the AoG (like Ted Haggard's New Life Church).

In fact, the term "dominion theology" actually derives from a term used in pentecostal and charismatic churches following certain doctrines of "spiritual warfare" and "deliverance ministry"--the idea that the "children of God" have to exert "dominion over the earth" because (in their theology) God lost dominion over the earth in the Fall and only the pentes and charismatics have "gotten it" since then.  (Specifically, dominion theology in pentecostal and charismatic churches, including the Assemblies of God and "independent charismatic" churches, is originally an outgrowth of a theology called "Latter Rain" or "Manifest Sons of God" theology that was taught as early as the thirties.  Dominion theology, most "deliverance ministry" teachings, the "word-faith" aka "name it and claim it" movements, and the Brownsville aka "Third Wave" movements are all descended from this.)

Most of the dominionist pentecostal and charismatic churches are to some extent fundamentalist (as in biblical-literalist), but most of the religious reasoning for dominionism in these groups stems from either teachings in the "deliverance ministry" movement (teaching that the US is possessed by "Territorial demons" and that dominionists must "take dominion" and exorcise these, including taking political power) or by teachings influenced by word-faith teachings (that teach that the US, along with Israel, is a "chosen nation" but is living in sin and in order for it to either redeem itself or to maintain its status as a "chosen people" it must be converted to a theocracy to "praise God and claim our blessing").  In pentecostal and charismatic churches heavily influenced by the Brownsville aka Toronto aka "Third Wave" movement (which actually dates back to the 1950's in the Assemblies of God itself), both of these reasonings are combined.

In pentecostal and charismatic churches in particular that are supportive of dominionist causes, dominionism is more often than not an outward symptom of ongoing spiritually abusive practices in the group (the Assemblies of God and New Life Church, and other pentecostal and large "independent charismatic" megachurches, have had repeated reports of spiritual abuse and tactics within churches embracing "third wave" theology in particular cross the line to coercive religious practices).

Most of my posts and comments  I've made in regards to dominionism on Talk2Action and other forums have been in specific regards to dominionism within the pentecostal and charismatic movements, in particular the Assemblies of God and independent charismatic churches with close ties to the AoG.  (I myself am a walkaway from an AoG megachurch that is very influential in its home state in regards to the dominionist movement.  This is one of those unfortunate areas in that being a survivor of what is essentially a spiritually abusive church with political aspirations has made me a bit of an expert in dominionism within this particular branch of religious practice.)

Within "nondenominational" churches...that varies extremely widely.  About the only way one can get an inkling of what a nondenominational church supports or does not support is to research the particular group;  there are legitimate nondenominational Christian churches, but "independent charismatic" churches allied with the dominionist movement also have been known to set themselves up as "nondenominational".  (I have even known of groups that are known fronts of the Assemblies of God--notably the AoG-operated charity Convoy of Hope and the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International--claim they were "nondenominational" even though quite literally the only groups promoting them were Assemblies of God churches and charismatic churches friendly towards the AoG (and the Assemblies of God webpages would admit it, after multiple layers of digging through their website).  The Assemblies in particular have a bad habit of "bait and switch" evangelism and feel hiding their actual agenda is a perfectly acceptable conversion technique, and most groups associated with the Assemblies of God don't reveal their association with that denomination because of (well deserved) bad press regarding the AoG in general.)

by dogemperor on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 05:19:55 PM EST

And where are the hardline Catholics in this?  For women and gays, their policies are as oppressive as any on the list, as is their insistence that the the law should follow their prescriptives.

by cyncooper on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 04:59:33 PM EST
Where does Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) a radical right wing interfaith group made up of mainline demonination members wishing to take over their denominations from the inside out, stand on this list.  I've been watching for the inclusion of this dangerous group and have yet to see it included.

John Neuhaus a convert to Roman Catholicism was a founder of IRD.  It would also be interesting to see a break down of Neuhaus's connections to other Roman Catholic conservatives groups including, but not limited to, Opus Dei.

by tikkun on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 03:30:08 PM EST

I would be willing to bet that it would fit in with wherever we put the charismatic and pentecostal dominionist groups, seeing as quite a number of those "mainstream denomination" dominionists are the direct result of dominionists from charismatic groups infiltrating mainstream denominations.

(I should note that "sheep-stealing"--attempting to convert members of other Christian groups--is not only considered an acceptable practice in the pente and charismatic circles promoting dominionism, it is actively encouraged including the act of joining other churches for purposes of infiltration and conversion.)

(It is also a very common practice for dominionist groups within the charismatic community, and even some directly affiliated with pentecostal denominations, to claim they are "nondenominational" or "ecumenical" and to set up shop in other churches (the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International is downright infamous for it, multiple other front groups of the Assemblies of God do it (including setting up Royal Rangers and Missionettes troops in non-AoG churches; the Royal Rangers and Missionettes, for those unaware, are Assemblies of God-operated "Christian Alternatives" to the Boy and Girl Scouts set up because the Boy Scouts aren't "Christian enough" for the AoG), and other spiritually abusive dominionist groups within the pente and charismatic communities have done it--most notably Maranatha, a highly spiritually abusive group that was explicitly dominionist, was banned from no less than three state university campuses before it broke up, and was explicitly endorsed by Ronald Reagan).  Conversion by infiltration and deception has been going on since at least the 1950's-1960's with some of these groups, if not longer.)

by dogemperor on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:19:38 PM EST

IRD is part of the Christian Reconstructionist stream.  I should reread my own diaries.  

On Charismatics, it isn't possible to catagorize them as either reconstructionists, dominionists, or fundamentalists.  Charismatics fall into every stream from dominionists to progressive Christians.  Therefore, it is doubly important to follow the money trail. I suspect another, even more specific, diary on money sources for these groups should be done.  I don't know if I'm the one to do this by my self, but I would certainly be more than willing to work with someone on the research.  

Current question: Who is funding Weyrich's "Arlington" group?  He claims the group has no formal structure but one joins by invitation only, is off the record (as opposed to "secret" according to Weyrich), has a full staff, an excutive director, and a board of directors.  I guess that structure belies a formal structure, eh?

Some members others might recognize are Weyrich, Gary Baur, Richard Land, Rev. James Dobson, Rev. Don Wildmon and Shannon Royce.  The group makes decisions by consensus to avoid motions which would appear in formal minutes with the names of people who make the motions attached to them.  

The group claims responsability for the successful placement of marriage issues on 11 state ballots across the country.  They also state that resources to go full-tilt in Ohio were raised from participants in the group.  

I could find no financial sources list on their webpage except for a "donations" button on the webpage.  There is also no indication as to whether the group has a legal tax identification status.

by tikkun on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 01:12:23 PM EST

Per this article pretty much almost all the usual suspects in the dominionist community are involved in the Arlington Group.

Determining funding is likely to be problematic; the Arlington Group, much like the Coalition on Revival and Coalition for National Policy, are largely coordination committees for dominionist activity.  The fact they are soliciting funds may make it easier to determine, though.

Per this article and particularly this article in the Washington Blade they do seem to be linked directly to the "presidential advising" role; among other things, the Arlington Group was involved in a conference call regarding selection of Harriet Miers as a potential Supreme Court justice nominee--a conference call that was instrumental in ultimately sinking the nomination when recordings and transcripts became available to the public.

Per this site I'm not finding a listing for the Arlington Group, but that could well be because they are registered as a PAC or not under a charity listing at all; one of the few groups that has done investigation of funding for the Arlington Group is Media Transparency Project.

It is entirely possible (and even probable, IMHO) that dominionist groups whose leaders are members of the "Arlington Group" may be in part funding it.

Other articles on the Arlington Group:

This is an area where actual research using pro-dominionist sources could be helpful.  A few that could be useful for intel:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05I13 (Based on the telephone numbers listed the group is likely based out of Washington, DC; odds are the incorporation records may be useful; this site has info on business incorporation in Washington; this site may have info on tax records)

Based on that last link from the Family Research Council, the second phone number listed (for the media contact for the Arlington Group) shows this according to a reverse phone directory search:

Family Research Council
801 G St
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 393-2100

202-624-3020 isn't listed, but the reverse directories I have consulted claim it is a Verizon customer number (possibly a wireless number) in the area.  Use of a professional skip-trace service could probably provide more info.

by dogemperor on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:56:45 PM EST

Guidestar has nothing on them either, thus they either are not a 501C(3) or they haven't filed tax info yet. Guidestar and FDN Center have annoying lag times. Whatever the source of their funding, you can bet it's got RNC's fingerprints all over it.

by Deacon Tim on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 10:00:28 PM EST
Per ERI Nonprofit's website it appears that Arlington Group is engaging in almost identical taxform misbehaviour as Focus on the Family is--specifically, they apparently are exempted specifically using the church exemption for 501(c)3 groups (this is, I'm finding, rather common with dominionist groups--partly because registering as a church largely exempts them from state requirements to register as an out-of-state charity soliciting funds in about 31 states).

Very interestingly, they seem to have incorporated in Florida (probably due to lax requirements for registering a business) and neither report income nor have a form 990 on file.

by dogemperor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:30:20 PM EST

Actually, come to think of it, they WOULD in fact fit in with the pente and charismatic dominionist groups--the trail of funders and money is identical to that of dominionism in general, and some of the funders in particular are known to be involved with the pentecostal and charismatic branches of dominionism (per the article you posted and based on my own research on corporate funding of dominionism at this link).

What would be especially interesting is if the funding trail is identical with the SBC hijacking and if there is any evidence that some of the folks involved in the hijacking of the SBC were in bed with the pentecostal and charismatic dominionist movements (there is preliminary evidence of this, mostly involving the early stages of the hijacking of the Republican party--specifically involving the history of the Conservative Caucus in the early-mid 70's).

by dogemperor on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 05:30:26 PM EST

that Diana Knippers has, in quaint Christian parlance, "Gone on to greater glory".  Is it too awfully crude to say that I am not shedding any tears over her removal from her earthly trials?

by tikkun on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 10:00:04 PM EST

I invite everyone to consider the definitions of many terms relevant to this diary as they're offered in the Religious Right Watch gloassary.

The link:  http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/glossary/glossary.htm

The glossary is always undergoing expansion and editing. As early as this week a large block of new terms (and biographical entries) will be added.

by IseFire on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 02:47:16 PM EST

The glossary shows a lot of work and a lot of attention to detail and complexity. There must ne some clever software way that we can write a collective glossary--without setting up our own Wiki... :-)
_ _ _

Chip Berlet: Research for Progress - Building Human Rights
by Chip Berlet on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 09:58:52 PM EST

In reading about the various flavors of Dominionism, it is possible to see the very real Theocratic threat in nearly every fundamentalist Christian ideal, particularly as their leadership is committed to duplicity and will use even the most innocuous suggestion as a wedge to advance their agenda (as indeed they did in the '50's with replacing the traditional and diversity affirming "E Pluribus Unum" on all the money with "in God We Trust" and now acting like it was always that way and proof that facts are the opposite of what they are).

However even as I was falling into that thought pattern, there was that horrid school shooting in Pennsylvania and another face of theocracy made itself clear. Here was a group of people, as fundamentalist as any, as totalitarian for their membership as any, but do not push their attitudes on anybody, not their neighbors and not even their children (though the children cannot help but to be heavily indoctrinated, they are still forced to make an informed choice and not all choose to stay).

The Domionist logic that anyone who accepts their precepts, must of necessity conquer the world, is put to lie by the Mennonite example.  And it also adds a cautionary note that even among the followers of the Dominionists are many if not most who do not understand the implications of their beliefs, and would be just as appalled as anyone of the reality of Domionist planning if they understood it.

The challenge for those who do hold strong faith is to hilite the most egregious parts of that agenda and separate those with an actual moral code from being subverted by those without one.

by FreeDem on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:17:42 PM EST

It makes sense. They believe the same things for the same reasons and feel the same way fundamentalists do, only more so, and they've decided to do something about it.| Decking Contractor               

by maroso on Mon Sep 13, 2021 at 07:11:10 AM EST

The churches of which Society approved tended to be bloodless, unthreatening, Sunday-only events where sin was rarely mentioned unless it was the 'sin' of poverty, and well-heeled members of the upper crust never had to fear sermons about the money lenders in the temple or the 'eye of the needle.


by madmardigan on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:25:23 AM EST

The only thing that separates them is that one group believes it has a better chance of getting what it wants if it makes its own insular world to live in, apart from Satan's influence, while the other is determined to parlay its power into forcing the creation of a godly society in which it is comfortable for its believers to live because everyone is made to believe what they believe and live as they want to live. Deck Waterproofing

by maroso on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 01:20:51 AM EST

In some ways, the intense emotional reactions in evangelical services were undoubtedly a reaction to the heavy social emphasis and dry intellectualism of mainstream Christian churches at the time. | concreters adelaide

by madmardigan on Mon Aug 14, 2023 at 11:51:05 AM EST

WWW Talk To Action

Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (374 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (198 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (250 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (64 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (176 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (211 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (167 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (330 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (148 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.