|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 18, 2010 16:02:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scottinal on Jun 18, 2010 16:47:09 GMT -5
I'm going to buy this book.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 18, 2010 17:22:29 GMT -5
Another good book is Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. I read it a few years ago around the same time that I read the Hedges book, and I liked them both but found that Goldberg's had more specific information/detail that I didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 18, 2010 18:08:06 GMT -5
Ooh, this looks like an interesting book--I'll look forward to reading this series and try to get hold of it for myself.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 18, 2010 19:35:01 GMT -5
Your link to alternet isn't working for me... (oh and I just bought the book)
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 18, 2010 21:02:49 GMT -5
Your link to alternet isn't working for me... (oh and I just bought the book) Thanks for letting me know, Jemand. It's fixed now. And thanks for buying the book ~ it really is packed with insight into Christian fundamentalism ~ the chapter on "Persecution" ~ is just ... wow ~ !
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 18, 2010 21:08:39 GMT -5
I put it on hold at the library. (Of course, I put 4 books on hold last night and there's a pile by my bed...but I'll try!)
|
|
wendy
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by wendy on Jun 19, 2010 7:48:47 GMT -5
"When fascism comes comes to America is will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
A couple weeks ago I read the wiki page on fascism and scared myself to death!
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Jun 22, 2010 7:18:07 GMT -5
Bob Altermeyer's "The Authoritarians" should be on everyone's reading list too -- he's been studying the topic for 40 years and wrote it up in plain English for us all. Very frightening and a good read. He's got it posted at home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 26, 2010 20:22:00 GMT -5
I got the book and have reached page 16. Dude, is that what dominionism is, what it says on page 12?? Is that seriously what people are discussing in fundamentalist churches these days? I'd heard of dominionism but had no clear idea of what it was supposed to be. I'm appalled.
So can I ask how many of the former QFers here were taught this dominionist stuff?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 14:06:16 GMT -5
I got the book and have reached page 16. Dude, is that what dominionism is, what it says on page 12?? Is that seriously what people are discussing in fundamentalist churches these days? I'd heard of dominionism but had no clear idea of what it was supposed to be. I'm appalled. So can I ask how many of the former QFers here were taught this dominionist stuff? Every QFer I've ever known IRL believed this stuff, but my experience may be a little skewed (I've only known QFers who lived in the DC metro area). But this stuff is not limited to QF believers; I've found it in every conservative Protestant Christian church I've ever been in (with the exception of the Anabaptists/Mennonites, because they're pacifists). And apparently it's made inroads in Catholicism is well (with people like Erik Prince of Blacwater Industries--now called Xe--a veritable Dominionist multinational corporation that has the power to overthrow a small country). Dominionism does scare me, I have to say. Especially given the influence of early writers like Rushdoony (who argued that the theocratic Christian state should have the power to execute homosexuals and so-called "unchaste women.").
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 27, 2010 19:17:13 GMT -5
Just so I know we're on the same page, here's the quote:
That all sounds kind of unbelievable to me, like 'The Handmaid's Tale' or something--how can this be as common as you say? I'm a little further in and I'm having a hard time knowing how seriously to take some of his more paranoid-sounding writing, but I'm not very far in yet.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 27, 2010 20:05:20 GMT -5
Ok, so I'll go through the quote and react based on my personal experiences, so we can see where you and I part company, as many of these things seem pretty basic to me, not at all controversial.
In my experience, this part is *very* common. Pretty widespread through many, many churches, they don't even have to consider themselves dominionists.
There are a TON of churches and Christians asserting that our legal system *already* is based on the 10 commandments, and the push to get creationism and "Christian values" into school systems seems very well documented and hardly contestable-- at least again, from my perspective.
There is a lot of pressure against any thought of, say, not starting government business with prayers and other Christian invocations, and there are *many* churches which greet political statements of faith with great pleasure and just gobble it up. As for the media, I have fewer examples in mind, but it certainly strikes me as believable, as something that many Christians, who might not even consider themselves dominionists, would welcome.
Here we are getting to those who most probably could only be described as Dominionist. However, the Seventh Day Adventist church which I left, which I don't think qualifies, had "prophetic" writings describing how those joining unions were just bundling themselves together for hellfire. There are also a LOT of christians in, say the Tea-Party movement who think civil rights legislation shouldn't exist, even if they personally think discrimination is wrong. Rand Paul got himself in trouble with this recently-- it's a sort of libertarianistic streak, the church, as a private entity, should take up most of the charity.
I don't really think any of these dominionists are wanting to *forcibly* remove women from the workplace. But... as I said before, threads of thought against civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation definitely exist in these groups, and coupled with no unions to fight for maternity leave, and restrictions on birth control as "abortificants" and what will the rational outcome would be? They aren't envisioning any police yanking women out of offices, but there are a LOT of Christians who would like some political outcomes which will *result* in women not having the ability to work outside the home.
This does stretch belief for me, however, if he would have narrowed it to, say, "Muslims will be denied citizenship" I could *definitely* believe there are christian groups who would go for that. Again, fewer than would go for anything I've already talked about in this list, but existent, yes.
Oh man, don't a lot of European countries have a very small church tax for the local congregation? You can get out of it, but it's not the easiest and you won't be able to be buried with your grandparents, but this seems *totally* believable to me. Probably not nearly 10 percent, but we seem to be outsourcing our millitary to private contractors no problem, and the "faith-based" initiatives. Heck, church run publically funded schools sounds about the *most* likely to actually happen on this list.
Really, there were only one or two on there that I'd judge as "very uncommon." Of course I don't think the political landscape will actually change enough for them to actually *do* all these things, but which ones did you think aren't believed?
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 27, 2010 20:42:41 GMT -5
Well, I was mostly struck by those last ones: no unions or schools, no women in the workforce, no citizenship for non-Christians (I'm assuming he means 'Christian' in the evangelical sense of evangelicals-only, not Catholics or Mormons or anybody like that), and tithes. I'm aware that some European countries with state churches do that--I lived in one for a while, it was 1%--but AFAIK America is supposed to be the opposite. IME and IMO state churches are a really bad idea. I know there are people arguing that the US was established as a Christian nation, and I'm only just starting to wrap my brain around what they actually mean by that.* I'm well aware of the pushes in some states to teach creationism in school and so on (my husband read the entire court transcript of the Dover case with Behe, if you can believe it ), but since I live in California, and nearly always have, I'm probably insulated from much of this. I know there are libertarians who would, I suppose, get rid of civil-rights laws as extraneous, but I would not have connected that with dominionism or thought that there were many that extreme. I'm just kind of gobsmacked by those last ones. I was especially struck by the differences between this kind of thing and my own church's ideas on similar subjects, so that probably contributed. I mean, how could you establish an American government that disallowed freedom of religion and call it American? I homeschool, but who thinks that public schools aren't needed? *American history is not my strong point anyway, but partly because I need to be able to understand those arguments, I'm in the middle of starting a reading challenge blog that will focus on primary sources in American history. Feel free to join in if you like; it's not political in any way, just educational. It will be prettier soon, too.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 27, 2010 20:43:12 GMT -5
Considering the fact that in the last twenty years Calvinism has made a major comeback in churches of many denominations and Reformed is the new black, I don't wonder that a heavy dominionist bent has overtaken the Christian imagination as well. I wonder how many people realize that Calvin created his very own totalitarian church state in Geneva about 500 years ago? A nightmare state, to me. But there are Patriarchal Reformed websites that really embrace these kinds of things as part of a biblical mandate to take dominion over the earthly kingdoms so that they may usher in the Kingdom of God. Here is a link to a short article on what Calvin's rule of Geneva included. church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvin-totalitarian.htmlEven websites that take a more liberal stance towards some things start with the assumption of the correctness of Calvinism and Reformed theology. I have watched this theology affect many of my old friends over the last twenty-five years and they are now firmly in the Reformed camp and straight into the whole Patriarcy/Church Discipline world view. Some have become Quiverfull as well. They love Glenn Beck, listen to him every day. And if you've been paying attention to him at all he's been going off in a very disturbing old testament prophet direction with some paranoid announcements of God revealing his 'plan' to him and this is mixed up with the politics of America in some way...It's really a disturbing trend he's gone in the last few months.* I read ' The Handmaid's Tale' when it first came out and was unimpressed by it's paranoid illusions of a church-state where women were more than oppressed in a Stepford Wives fashion etc. I didn't know anyone who was very religious who even thought like that, and I was part of a real fundamentalist church culture. But lately it doesn't sound as paranoid any more. Overdrawn, yes. Certainly. But not as fantasy world as it did so many years ago. Which I find greatly disturbing. When writers decry women's suffrage as a terrible sin Amercia committed and declare the period we live in now as the Age of Jezebel... I don't think Doug Phillips, Phil Lancaster, and Geoff Botkin would have any problem living in that world. * I don't listen to him but catch the highlights since so many of my friends think he's the best thing ever and I was so appalled by this news that I wanted to find out what they were liking so much. I am NOT a fan. If anyone here is I am not trying to offend or pick a fight, but I wanted my own opinion to be clear on this point.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 22:34:05 GMT -5
Hey dangermon: The last bits of the quote that you're stuck on come directly from Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law. They don't come from out of nowhere, no, but they may not represent 100 % of Dominionist believers. My observations align pretty closely with jemand's, to be honest.
Now that you're quoting this author, I'm definitely remembering why I wasn't totally thrilled with the book. I liked it okay, but I found the writing vague and overly theoretical (without quite enough theoretical expertise to back his use of theory). That's why I recommended the book, Kingdom Coming, in an above comment. It conveys similar information. It's a lot less theoretical. I read both books at the same time, but Goldberg's book has more in the way of hard facts (and actual citations). Which I think is important in any journalistic treatment of this kind of thing. So, it may be that that kind of book might work better for you. It did for me. I've quoted it in guest posts I've written here and have found it very, very useful in terms of helping me understand the scope and threat of some of this stuff.
btw, I think the US is quite different from pretty much any other country in terms of the political power that Dominionism has. This particular book does not strike me as extremely paranoid, but I can see how it would seem so for someone either (1) not living in the United States or (2) not quite as entrenched in Dominionist culture as I have been. That's why I recommend a more fact-driven book like Goldberg's (as opposed to that particular book's more idea-driven focus). So, in any way, that's my two cents, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 22:36:43 GMT -5
I read ' The Handmaid's Tale' when it first came out and was unimpressed by it's paranoid illusions of a church-state where women were more than oppressed in a Stepford Wives fashion etc. I didn't know anyone who was very religious who even thought like that, and I was part of a real fundamentalist church culture. But lately it doesn't sound as paranoid any more. Overdrawn, yes. Certainly. But not as fantasy world as it did so many years ago. Which I find greatly disturbing. When writers decry women's suffrage as a terrible sin Amercia committed and declare the period we live in now as the Age of Jezebel... Oh, yeah, I can definitely see where this is coming from. I, for my part, read this book not that long after I came out of being influenced by an Orthodox Presbyterian Quiverfull church that included, y'know, readings of Calvin and Rushdoony in the weekly lectionary. So, it struck me at the time as exceptionally terrifying. I knew--and still know--people who wanted a government like the one in that book. If I were to read it now, I'd probably agree with nikita that it's maybe just slightly overdrawn, a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 27, 2010 22:41:53 GMT -5
By the way, Dominionism has it's own version of "US history" that has no resemblance to anything you and I probably learned in school. In its version, all of the founding fathers were evangelical Christians (as opposed to Deists). I have tried to tell Dominionists (who are personal friends) that Jefferson wrote a version of the Gospels that removed references to the miraculous and divine, and they will say (I kid you not), "Well, I'll have to look into the sources you have for that information." I have Jefferson's version of the Gospels! So, yes. You're asking "how can they do this??" But, frankly, there's a quite powerful force in American evangelicalism that has long been doing this. When I was reading a Dominionist book from the local Christian bookstore that endorsed this kind of revisionist history as a teenager, I remember seeing that Newt Gingrich (then the Speaker of the House, and no religious zealot, by any means) had written a blurb on the back singing its praises. This isn't new in the US, but it's gained tremendous ground since the 1980's--and has, in my view, gained renewed energy since the beginning of the Clinton administration. The Republican Party in this country has long had to kowtow to this kind of political current in US evangelicalism, and this has become even more extreme, I think, since the Obama election.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 28, 2010 15:32:59 GMT -5
Is there anyone out there with a strong stomach who can actually read "A Patriot's History of the United States" and write a review??
I could barely read the jacket without a blood pressure spike.
There are, thankfully, a lot of people beginning to talk about Dominionism, but I can only beg folks to look carefully at ALL GOP candidates this fall, not just the congressional ones and please vote your concience...no matter what anyone would say otherwise, liberals support a pluralist society that includes a deep respect for the right to worship how you see fit, not something the dominionists are prepared to do!
|
|
|
Post by jillrhudybarrett on Jun 30, 2010 10:49:58 GMT -5
I guess I could chime in, being one of the only women in the QF movement who is actually identified in Kathryn Joyce's book "Quiverfull" as a QF reconstructionist, or the wife of one (same thing). If you don't have a copy, googlebook it. I'm on p. 210 and p. 213. I wasn't allowed my own mind, and didn't break with my then-husband's "dominion theology" until he embraced polygamy and the belief that women do not receive the Holy Spirit (Malleus Malefacarum, anyone?). Even then, I didn't dare to repudiate him publicly. We fought privately, because he already a second wife all picked out and had begun giving her topless back rubs in her house while her husband was at sea (all he will admit to, and to accuse him of more in this forum will get me sued). When he demanded I get pregnant a seventh time, and I refused, he threatened polygamy, which is a matter of public record. www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1123041.pdf(p. 2, footnote 1) Where reconstruction/dominion theology is concerned, I'm thinking of the words of Count Fosco in Wilkie Collins's classic Victorian novel "The Woman in White." Speaking of his wife, he said, "There is but one opinion between us, and that opinion is mine." He/we believed it all. That the Old Testament Law should be the Code of the United States. That gay people and divorced/remarried people should be stoned to death. That we could not eat pork or shellfish. I bought 100% cotton garments because "mixed fibers" violated God's Law. In fact, I've devoted a few hours to googling the ugly resurgence of my old nasty self online this week. I'll post more to the bathtub birth forum on that subject. I found one old bulletin board post which I signed, "May God spur us all to dominion." We wanted to live in Calvin's Geneva and worked for it. Seven stripes of stark raving insane. Jill
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 30, 2010 10:53:49 GMT -5
Wow, Jill... Amazing. I never knew people quite that extreme. It sounds like you've done a lot to rebuild your life. Good for you. And thanks for being honest about your past beliefs. As a non-heterosexual person, it means a lot to me when people know I'm around and are willing to be honest about what they've done and beliefs they've held. And it means a lot, btw, that I can now have conversations with such people.
Creepy about your husband getting involved in polygamy, btw. Ugh... By the way, how common is polygamy in QF? It's one of those things I've never even heard of, as most QF folks I've known make an effort to distinguish themselves from the FLDS.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 30, 2010 11:46:18 GMT -5
Hey, Jill, I'm curious... Did you actually know any people involved in this movement who did something violent to a gay person or a remarrier? I'm curious because abortion clinic bombings (and violence against abortion providers) have long been on the fringes of Christian fundamentalism. But I haven't heard of people attacking gays for the same reasons. The worst homophobic practice I know about in Christianity is the "God hates fags" church, which is aggressive and hateful in itself. I'm curious whether or not there's something out there that is even more so?
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 30, 2010 22:14:26 GMT -5
Now that you're quoting this author, I'm definitely remembering why I wasn't totally thrilled with the book. I liked it okay, but I found the writing vague and overly theoretical (without quite enough theoretical expertise to back his use of theory). That's why I recommended the book, Kingdom Coming, in an above comment. It conveys similar information. It's a lot less theoretical. I read both books at the same time, but Goldberg's book has more in the way of hard facts (and actual citations). Which I think is important in any journalistic treatment of this kind of thing. So, it may be that that kind of book might work better for you. It did for me. I've quoted it in guest posts I've written here and have found it very, very useful in terms of helping me understand the scope and threat of some of this stuff. btw, I think the US is quite different from pretty much any other country in terms of the political power that Dominionism has. This particular book does not strike me as extremely paranoid, but I can see how it would seem so for someone either (1) not living in the United States or (2) not quite as entrenched in Dominionist culture as I have been. That's why I recommend a more fact-driven book like Goldberg's (as opposed to that particular book's more idea-driven focus). So, in any way, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. Thanks, I am having similar problems with this book and will see if I can get hold of the Kingdom Coming title. It's not in my library though. I guess I'm #2. I only heard of Dominionism in a vague sort of way a few years ago, and this is the first time I've heard anything concrete about it. I had an idea that it was something about the US being a chosen country and that God had guided its history, but I had no clue. I think that probably most people who are not actually evangelical or living in the Bible Belt probably do not know about this stuff. Question: are PCA churches generally also Dominionist? Jill, I just finished Quiverfull a few weeks ago and still have it in my library bag, so I looked you up.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 30, 2010 22:29:50 GMT -5
dangermom: Not sure if PCA churches are usually Dominionist or not. Many are. I've known of several QF PCA churches. The PCA does have an extremely conservative approach to theology, though. Whether or not this has become politicized in the form of Dominionism probably depends on the church.
|
|
|
Post by jillrhudybarrett on Jul 1, 2010 12:15:00 GMT -5
If there's any actual physical violence against gays promoted or condoned by any reconstructionists, theonomists, dominionists, extreme Calvinists or whatever you call 'em, I have never heard about it during or since my involvement in the movement. The ones I've read always said that we had to get the laws changed and then we could get on with the stonings, not take the law into our own hands prematurely.
I was always uncomfortable with the Old Testament capital punishment stuff, because I knew deep down that if the gay men and rebellious sons were executed, I would be next, since controlling female sexuality always seems to be the fulcrum of religious mania for who knows what reason, and I didn't know how much longer I'd be able to keep up with the insane demands on my body. My ex was too fond of quoting that verse that helped push Andrea Yates over the edge, "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." I could connect the dots.
Disobedient children have been killed in service to QF/dominion mania, "disciplined to death" via the teachings of the Pearls, as parents struggled to get the devil out of them and make them into God's ideal little soldiers. I think this has been discussed in this forum before.
Jill
|
|