Talk:Christianism

message: "Christianism" is a neologism.  I suggested "courageism" a few months back, as an obvious and very meaningful antidote to "terrorism" and was roundly rejected.  If "Christianism" is intended to be understood with reference to "Islamism," then every Muslim who believes the government should prohibit publication of the Mohammed cartoons is an "Islamist," by Sullivan's definition, not just a Muslim.
Scott W. Somerville
scott@hslda.org
Hi! I reverted your edits of the redirect page because "Christianism" as a philosophy didn't ring a bell for me, and after a quick Google search, I couldn't really come up with any mainstream usages of it as you're defining the term. It seems to be bloggers talking to other bloggers- not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can see how it sort of looks like you're trying to establish a phrase by getting it in Wiki, right? --Puffy jacket 13:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: The political term Christianism seems to have evolved in western media outlets, particularly in online blogs,[5] as a counterpoint to the term "Islamist." As Andrew Sullivan has said, "Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque."[6]
If "Christianism" is used as a parallel to the more familiar term "Islamism,", and its cognates, "Muslim" and "Islamist", it tends to highlight the degree to which ordinary Christians believe in governmental enforcement of Christianity. A Christian who objects to cartoons of Jesus Christ would be a "Christian" if he or she supports the right to print such cartoons, but would be a "Christianist" if he or she believes the government should prohibit or punish the publication of such pictures.
However, Christian Reconstructionists or Dominionists may or may not agree with this characterization, depending on what is meant by the expressions "wield [Christianity] as a political force" and "conflate state and [church]". 
In the sense they believe all areas of life, political as well as social and personal, are to be lived under the rule of God's Law, as they view it, they would affirm that Christianity should be wielded as a political force. Insofar as the government of their nation allows them to actively persue their political ideals, in that measure they should bring Christian ideals (as they understand them) to bear on policy-making and political sanctioning.[7] 
Likewise, in the sense they believe that one must render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and one, including Caesar, must render unto God what belongs to God (Matt. 22:21), they would affirm that State and Church are, at least perfunctorily, connected. Though each must operate within its own sphere and domain, without admixture, both must be ultimately subject to God's Law as it variously applies to each.[8]
However, if the expressions are taken to mean "wield Christianity illegally and/or violently to enforce political ideals", and "conflate the functions and spheres of church and state, such that Erastianism or Papalism results", Dominionists, although this seems to contradict their underlying premises, would tend to disagree with such a description of its aims and motives.[9]
Howcome islamist is shown badly, but christianism is shown as good, im getting tired of wikipedia, its full of racism and bigotry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist Christianism

message: The last two paragraphs are, in fact, an original research essay promoting the views of Christian Reconstructionism. This tends to off-balance the entire entry. I have attempted to rewrite the graphs to be less POV, but it is a block of text that reflects a tiny militiant POV of the very people the critics say are promoting "Christianism," -- the title of this entry. It is as if the entry on Islamism was primarily an essay by Islamists refuting the criticisms.--Cberlet 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If you want to write an essay extolling the ideas of Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism, the Internet has many options. Much of the text belongs on either Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism where much of the same material already exists.  Much of the text is redundnat and overly detailed for this page--it unbalances the page. Most of the text is an original research essay. Inote that you have described yourself as "I consider myself a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, epistemological realist, ontological representationalist," so you have a partisan POV.  So do I. That means we both need to avoid writing original research essays that bulk up entries. At best, there should be a note that some theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists object to how their relationship to political action is criticized--and then links to Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism. The bulk of the text in the Christian Reconstructionist Response section should be moved to Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. I propose we do that.--Cberlet 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been following the conversations here and, after thinking about this for a while, I believe that this article should be a redirect (such as on this page from the article' history). I also support moving the Christian Reconstructionist Response section to Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism, as Cberlet suggests. In addition to seeming to be the most logical place for this information, moving the section will also allow other editors with a specialty in this area to comment on the information. --Alabamaboy 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this suggestion.  -- Alan McBeth 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your concerns. However, Wikipedia operates by consensus. I have also stated that I'm ok with this article redirecting to the other pages. That doesn't mean I don't think your work lacks merit but that it appears, after reading all of the discussions here, that the work should be placed into the other article. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Reconstructionist Response

message: Shouldn't this be a redirect to Dominionism, an established term with an article?  If Wikipedia needs to cover the neologism, then the article should be clearer on that point and that use of Christianism is mostly rhetorical. -Acjelen 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus appears to be to change this article back into a redirect. I will do this momentarily.--Alabamaboy 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope people here will do to Talk:Dominionism#Christianism and comment there about the addition of the term Christianism to the article. The addition keeps being reverted or partially reverted.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect discussion 

message: *From Sullivan:
Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
::A cite would be nice. In the meantime, it is all deleted. Poof. Have a nice day.--Cberlet 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Sullivan 

message: A pejorative is, by definition, intrinsically contemptuous and/or belittling, and not about mere "disapproval" (as online dictionaries will show).  Whether or not the word Christianist is pejorative should be for the reader to decide.  Its inclusion is suggestive and weaselly.  Because certain individuals personally don't see what's biased about the qualifier is not a good excuse for including it when it could just as soon be left out.
Sullivan is saying that Christianists are Republicans.  Not the other way around.  It's erroneous to conclude that Sullivan's view of Republicans is based on what would be a fallacy of composition.
That said, I'm not going to revert these same edits twice in a row.  If anyone besides me takes exception to them, then that person or one of those people can do it.Adrigon (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think Sullivan does consider the bulk of the Christian right "Christianists."  Definitely he generally applies it to the mainstream Christian right rather than the far right.  I still don't see what's biased about "pejorative." Readers should know that this is a word used exclusively by opponents of the philosophy it describes.  "Pejorative" communicates that fact, but if there's some other way to do that which is less objectionable to you, feel free to put that in the article instead.Prezbo (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If anyone wants an example Sullivan identifies Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback as "Christianist standard-bearers" here.  Not the far right.Prezbo (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to the use of a qualifier like pejorative. I'm concerned about the repeated deletion of sourced material here and at Dominionism. My sense is that both mentioned politicians (while not seen as tea party supporters) sit on the rightward side of the very conservative Republican party here in the US; both come from states regularly portrayed as conservative-leaning. I ask the User:Prezbo to refrain from any more deletions until we muster some consensus. While I'm neutral as to the above opinion of Mr. Sullivan, ideally the page shouldn't over-guided by the opinion of any one user. I suggest we use this talkspace to construct an acceptable lede. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding :Category:Far right politics in the United States to Sam Brownback's Wikipedia article and see how far you get.  The applicability of that category to this page is what this discussion is about.Prezbo (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to try what I suggested, use this talkspace to find a satisfactory lede. Unless I'm misreading, it appears this discussion thread is about disagreement with your edits on this page, not about a category not previously mentioned or inserted. My concern is that your use of the term pejorative seems to signal a sort of personal bias on these subjects. Here's what I'm seeing: willy-nilly deletion of sourced material and citation; a choice to characterize this pagesubject as a negative view, hence pejorative, rather than merely descriptive and distinguishing from "Christian"; a series of edit summaries which seem to mis-characterize issues in this discussion; a tendency in this discussion to steer disagreement onto minutia you introduced. I tend to agree with the points made by User:Adrigon above, and ask you to save your unhelpful edits until after the deletion discussion is complete. If you'd like to support a position at the AfD, that would be good too. To my eyes, it appears as though you'd like to see the article (and any reference to Christianism) deleted from Wikipedia, and you're supporting your view by deleting sourced material here and at the other page. I want to assume good faith, but this discussion is about your edits, not a category. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of my reversion 

message: Instead of simply deleting the Christianism article, I suggest redirecting and merging it with the Dominionism article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge instead of Delete 

message: Hi,
fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.
However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion. 
E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people."
And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").
By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."
And "Christianism" as above.
Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to  political movements, to avoid confusion.
To be consistent I will also add this discussion to the "Islamism" page.
--Musa Emre (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  It is not Wikipedia's job to decide how the word should be used, but rather to describe how peopel are using it, and how it has been used in the past, which the article does. Mathiastck (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianism, Islamism, Judaism 

message: I think we are giving undue weight to the opinion of all these bloggers. The term is not new and even if some uses it in a pejorative way, it's still pretty much a synonymous for Christianity. Is the pejorative usage really that common in the US? Laurent (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's particularly common but it's definitely more common than the older usage of the term as a synonym for "Christianity." If you don't think the pejorative usage deserves this much coverage in Wikipedia (it may not), my suggestion would be AfD because that usage is really the only claim the word has to notability.  As a synonym for "Christianity" it would at best deserve a redirect to "Christianity" and an entry in Wiktionary, not an encyclopedia article.Prezbo (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrt your last edit summary--every Wikipedia article is about one definition of the word or phrase that forms its title.  When a word has two definitions and both are notable, Wikipedia deals with that by creating two articles differentiated by parentheses in their titles.  In this case the older meaning of "Christianism" definitely doesn't deserve its own article or to be treated as the primary topic of this article, as I explained above.Prezbo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the word has two different definitions - one that has been in use for hundreds of years and one that has been used since 2003 by some bloggers in the US. I think it's misleading to make the article primarily about the latter definition. Also I'm sure that if we want we can expand the article so that it's not just a dictionary definition. There are plenty of sources on Google Books, like this one for instance. Laurent (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that that book is discussing a third meaning distinct from the Webster's definition or the currently more common pejorative usage.  This will be my last response because I'm repeating myself, but one more time: when a word has multiple unrelated meanings Wikipedia's solution is to create separate articles for each meaning that is notable, not to create one article about the word listing all its meanings, whether they're notable or not.  See the "Major differences" section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Being in use for hundreds of years doesn't automatically make a word deserving of an encyclopedia article; being covered in the New York Times might, although this article probably should have died at AfD in any case.Prezbo (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the pejorative usage of "christianism" is notable, however my point is that the article misleads the reader into thinking that this is the only usage or the primary usage. What I'm proposing is to add a line or two to make it clear that the pejorative usage is new, and that the term used to mean something else. Also I'd argue that the current article is purely about the usage of the term - how it has been used by various people. So if we only mention some usages and not others, we are breaking NPOV. Look for instance at Islamism where the various usages of the term are described in the lead. Laurent (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version does not portray the current usage as the only usage, it seems like a fine way to present previous and current usage.  Mathiastck (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: I deleted the reference to the Merriam Webster definition- "the religious system, tenets, or practices of Christians"- and replaced it with a reference to the Atlantic. The word was coined in an analogy to Islamism, Islam as a political philosophy. The Merriam Webster definition does not distinguish Christianism from Christianity, and contradicts the note "Not to be confused with Christianity". Abigailgem (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merriam Webster definition 

message: I have redirected the article "Christianism" to "Christianity", and the latter should report "Christianism" as a variant name of the religion. "Christianism" is the original name of the Christian religion (Gr. Khristianismos, La. Christianismus), pre-dating "Christianity" which originally was a Latinate synonym of "Christendom", referring to the Christian world or Christian community (which at the time of its original usage was the civilization of Medieval Europe). Later "Christianity" became the name of the religion while "Christendom" remained the term referring to the Christian world, while "Christianism" fell out of use. The attempt to mutate the usage of "Christianism" to refer to Christian fundamentalism can be traced back to a few American journalistic articles of the early 21st century — apparently all written by Andrew Sullivan, who is not even a professional journalist —, and such attempt originated as a clumsy imitation of "Islamism". Such attempt is not enough to change the long established meaning of this ancient word, and the article "Christianism" on Wikipedia gave it WP:UNDUE weight, as it has been repeatedly noted in almost all the past discussions on this talk page.--37.161.156.78 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to the original meaning of the term: "Christianism" redirected to "Christianity"