Talk:Dominionism/Archive 1

message: This article was previously at Dominionist. Belief systems are generally listed in Wikipedia under the name of the belief system, not the word for an adherent thereof: Christianity, Communism, and so forth. --FOo 05:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to [[Dominionism]] 

message: I am a critic of Dominionism, but this page was way over the top in terms of violating NPOV. Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are not the same thing. A subset chart would look like this:
:Triumphalism
::Dominionism
:::Dominion Theology
::::Christian Reconstructionism
The specific meanings are different in important ways.  Some national Republican political figures are Dominionist, but few are believers in Dominion Theology, and I can't think of any who are actually Christian Reconstructionist, although it is possible one or two are. --Cberlet 14:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I rewrote this page 

message: What serious political commentator compares the Christian Right to Trotskyism?--Cberlet 03:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trotskyism? 

message: This page now has cited material critical of Dominionism, and then rambling uncited theological statements by an editor who is an "elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church."  This is not appropriate. If supporters of reform or orthodox Presbyterianism want to provided cites and quotes to make these or other points critical of the concept of Dominionism, that is proper.  But to insert uncited original research and POV opinion is not proper.--Cberlet 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, totally disputed is certainly descriptive of my views of the rants you have "cited" for credibility.  I'll work on providing quotes to support the statements, but once again, you misrepresent me by supposing that I am writing as a "supporter of reform" or of "orthodox Presbyterianism".  Once again, I'll look expectantly beyond all of this posturing in the hope that a decent collaborative effort will eventually arise, with patience.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cite actual published material supporting your claims, I will not call them "rants."  For you to call what I have cited "rants" makes it clear you are writing as a critic of the views they express. I am a critic of Dominionism, but I don't call actual cites disputing what I cite "rants," and I don't insert original research into this page trying to discredit views with which I disagree. When you cease doing this, we can begin a constructive effort to make this page accurately reflect multiple viewpoints. --Cberlet 00:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can call them as I see them, in Talk.  My problem with your "cites" is that they make nonsense of the essay.  Since these logical problems are invisible to you, even when I point them out (you call them "rambling uncited theological statements" gee, that's kind of harsh), I guess you'll have to wait until I have time to look up someone else who will say the same thing.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I will simply re-edit based on what is cited.  Feel free to add material when you have time.  It is not up to you to decide what is "logical" in a criticism written by a published author with a doctorate in sociology.--Cberlet 01:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You continue to misrepresent me, and it's getting hard to ignore.  I am not speaking code here, this is easy to follow.  Surely you understand that it was not a "criticism" that I'm objecting to, but an illogically placed definition.  The citation appeared in the context to be placed as supporting the distinction between "general" dominionism, and "theocratic" dominionism.  It did not support this distinction, it contradicted it.  Consequently, it contradicted a primary structural theme of the essay, which was that there are distinct groups which should not be conflated.  You are tilting at windmills.  Anyway, I appreciate that you now seem to understand at least some of my complaints against the earlier version of the article.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a very hard time understanding your points, and when you are patronizing, it does not encourage me to make the effort.  I have tried to include more balanced material, and tried to understand your points and address them fairly. I am not trying to misrepresent you. The post above is almost unintelligible to me.  I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps this is all me, but could you please include some actual text and then complain about it rather than talking in floating generalities?  Please?--Cberlet 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Patronizing?  I have a hard time believing that you are not trolling - have you actually read what you have been writing in answer to what I have been writing? aargh ... I must fight the temptation to read such things into what you are doing here.  Hopefully, this annoying, slippery misunderstanding will soon evaporate.  Let's drop that and go on to the next annoyance. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited opinions and POV 

message: I am not sure many folks, especially non-Christians, are going to figure out what is being said here.  Can we tease it out for a broader audience:
"The dominionist interpretation sees here a command from God to all mankind to exercise a steward's authority, implying that all human authority is given by God, and is therefore subject to the rule of the Word of God." 
I'm a lefty Christian, so I get it, but it took a few readings.--Cberlet 20:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The last edit might be more accomodating of colloquial English usage of the term, stewardship.  What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that helped a bunch.  I have added some details and split up some sentences. It's longer, but I think it is clearer for a non-Christian, but you should give it another run through.--Cberlet 21:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And the rewrite is excellent, thanks.--Cberlet 01:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honing a finer edge 

message: The second half of the article is as important as the first, and certainly more central to the controversy, so that it deserves some attention.  I intend to re-write it, which I'll just boldly do; but of course, I want it to be reviewed for the possibility that part or all of it may need to be reverted, if what I'm about to do gets us off to a bad start.  So anyway ... here goes.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the edits so far have been thoughtful, and while I clearly fear the worst aspects of Dominionism, the edits have made the article clearer and more accessible, and a bit more fair.  :-)  --Cberlet 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for working with me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocratic dominionism 

message: Has dominionism been redefined?  When did the term start implying an alliance?   The implication does not seem to follow from the definition.  Does it imply an alliance for the the whole spectrum of dominionism, for soft dominionism and for hard dominionism?  Does soft dominionism "allying" with hard dominionism imply that the soft are with the hard all the way to theocracy? Or only on an issue that also attracts a diversity of kinds of supporters?  How necessary is this new feature of dominionism?  What if we find evidence that moderates and radicals are not allied, does that mean that one or the other is not subject to the label of dominionism?  What if the radicals are allied with the moderates, but the moderate don't want them as allies?  Do the critics still view them as an "alliance"?  --Silverback 23:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
: This struck me as a decent point. I changed the sentence to say that the use of the term "Dominionism" implies the direct influence of radicals upon the moderates in the Religious Right. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"the term implies an alliance between moderates and radicals"'' 

message: This article is now clearly stating that there are few people who are self-proclaimed Dominionists, but many more people who are against what they fear to be a dominionst trend. With that in mind, whouldn't this article be renamed "Anti-Dominionism" as the reaction to Christian Reconstructionism. MPS 00:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term has been used by sociologists and other scholars for over 12 years. It is used by many Christians critical of the concept. This is not an uncommon circumstance.--Cberlet 02:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-dominionism 

message: User: 208.27.111.130. Please stop this campaign of unexplained deletions and rewrites that remove valid criticisms of ther Christian Right and dominionism.--Cberlet 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletions 

message: I've noticed that the the dutch Political Reformed Party and the European European Christian Political Movement have been placed in dominionist categories. I don't think that's right. The parties do not call themselves dominionist, or have intensive contacts with American dominionist parties. They may seem similar or have similar political goals, but that's like putting the U.S. Democratic party in a social-democratic category, just because they are both proponents of some kind of welfare state. If any body can give me a reference showing that the SGP or the ECPM are/call themselves dominionist, please convince me. 
What I propose as a solution is creating the category:European Christian Political Movement, which includes all ECPM members, and a reference in the ECPM article that ECPM member parties are similar to dominionist parties, tendencies and organizations in the U.S.
- C mon 08:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Dominionist Parties 

message: Laced throughout this article is the idea that Calvinism, and Evangelicalism generally, are somehow totalitarian.  First, various groups are called "dominionist" that aren't.  Secondly, dominionist groups have nowhere the strength claimed.  Moreover, most dominionist groups do NOT advocate violence at all, much less like that advocated by fundamentalist Muslims.  Most dominionists see a day of SELF-submission en masse, not a day of the sword.  This article is largely from a secularistically critical POV; not having the more accurate nuance that a Christian critic gives from inside.  Most of the people and groups mentioned seek nothing more than is sought by historically Roman Catholic (and in some parts Calvinistic) Christian Democracy, which doesn't seem to engender the wrath that newer politically-active evangelicalism does (though they are largely the same).  I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson, not because he envisions a Christian America, but because he lacks discernment to the point of quackery sometimes.  If America were to become Christian, it would be a good thing, as long as it is tied to a love of freedom, not oppression.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're the one doing the POV ax grinding here, not the article. The NPOV tag is not justified here; the article seems fine and is well-supported. The tag needs to come down. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to me to be balanced when taken overall.  If Guðsþegn has issues with particular statements or claims perhaps he could identify them.  An NPOV tag on the whole article does not seem to eb warranted, since it is an encyclopaedic treatment of a term in current use and apparently documented in the literature.  partial birth abortion is also a term coined by detractors, but the article on it is encyclopaedic enough. Just zis Guy you know? 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the topic of POV, shouldn't the redlink to "papalism" be removed?  Would not any article posted under that heading be likely to be either hopelessly unencyclopedic POV or, if not, then a candidate for merger with Catholicism or Roman Catholic Church?Rlquall 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV max 

message: Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a genuine campaign. We haven't had one of these since Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What campaign? I did exactly what the article on creating TFDs said to do, nothing more. I notified everyone who had talked on the relevant talk pages, including people who I knew would be against the proposed deletion. Problem?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX
 – 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article has come a long way from the "watch this space for more info about how Dominionists are plotting in large numbers to take over the world" tone that it began with.  I have always contended that there are several such people but they are just not mainstream conservatives or Christians.  I think that the template can be useful, too, as long as we work together constantly to keep it as NPOV as humanly possible, and will also be posting this or a similar comment in that debate.  Rlquall 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism 

message: There's no shortage of reputable sources that say it is.
Cornell's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy: http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
Harper's:
http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html
Salon's Michelle Goldberg's book: Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (and noted in the review by publishers weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/PWdaily/CA6316005.html)
I have literally dozens of sources that say it is. I'll post them all if necessary, but I think the sources given make the case already. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It obviously fits the mould perfectly, although what matters more is that others have described it as being a culture-war issue.  Guettarda 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that the article has support for it, the category is acceptable.  --Rob 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it all comes down to the sources. Are we missing reliable sources that define dominionism? Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, citing CRESP is a bit like citing the Communist Party, which isnt' too far off, considering both are part of United for Peace and Justice. Accuracy doesn't matter, and I agree FeloniousMonk seems to care more about his personal opinions than factual accuracy. If he doesn't why doesn't he allow viewpoints that differ from his own?
--Pravknight 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue in the culture wars? 

message: Offline sources are of course ok.  However, because they are offline, they especially need more information then merely the name of the publication and page, to aid in their access.  Also, rather than me tagging everything needing a cite, how about people just doing that in first place, and saving us some time.  Edit summary comments like "his views are well known" as an excuse not to cite something, seem to totally misunderstand Wikipedia policy on citation requirements.  I don't care if something is well known to you.  Provide your sources, or it may be removed, if questioned.   --Rob 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to cite sources unless there is a dispute about the facts or an assertion of truth is being made that needs to be attributed. "Goerge Bush is the President of the USA" doesn't need a citation. Neither does "Rushdoony is a Theonomist". If there arises a dispute over the facts (such as a source claiming something different) I'll be glad to give full cites from the relevant sources. Otherwise I view the request as superfulous. » MonkeeSage « 07:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a few more people know about Bush then Rushdoony.  I won't re-add the  tag to that particular sentence.  Anyway, could clarify something?  Are you just saying uncontested facts don't need cites (like a footnote), or do you think they don't even need to be sourced at all (e.g. not even in general references).  If you wish to avoid citing uncontested well known facts, and leave it to general references section, that's fine with me, that's the norm.  If you feel that its unecessary to provide sources for facts, then I strongly disagree, and feel that in Wikipedia, it's epxected that everything is sourced properly.  It should always be possible for any reader, even those unfamiliar with the topic, to easily verify what's read, by checking with sources provided.  Anyway, maybe I misread what you meant. --Rob 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I added two full cites from Rushdoony. I can also provide more or clearer cites if needed, as I have both Bahnsen's Theonomy and his [Rushdoony's] Institutes. » MonkeeSage « 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  offline sources 

message: If you wish to use this as a source, that's fine.  But you should not use them to state opinion as fact.  Rather, attribute the statement to them (ideally the specific author), in the body of the article, as in "According to so-and-so of Yurica Report .....".  We need to ensure that Wikipedia does not endorse a political position, but merely covers them.   --Rob 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Theonomist/Reconstructionist/Dominionist, so I obviously don't agree with Katherine Yurica's POV. That was just the closest source (being linked elsewhere in the article) to confirm common knowledge information which was (I believe) wrongly tagged as needing a citation. » MonkeeSage « 07:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted "usually considered"; but feel free to rework. » MonkeeSage « 12:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yuricareport 

message: I'm having some trouble with this paragraph:
:Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but anti-Dominionist critics commonly point to this passage as a paradigm that influences Christian attitudes of Western domination over the Earth and everything in it.
Firstly, the Christians typically...over the Earth, clause. Is this true? Is not 'responsibility over the Earth' based on modern ideas of egological fragility? Is their any source for the claim that most Xtians interpret the verse this way?
Secondly, anti-Dominionist critics seems a bit awkward, does this means critics of Dominionists or critics of anti-Dominionists? And are there any notable examples of these critics? 
Finally, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing everything from paradigm... onwards. Could the original author rephrase it? 
Regards, Ashmoo 05:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble with paragraph 

message: Why is this statement being removed from the lead and elsewhere: "There is also a movement to rename Dominionism as Christianism in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right." The reasons given for reverting this addition is that it is POV or "Not a given" but this is merely summing up what the people pushing this term are saying (per "My Problem with Christianism" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, accessed May 9, 2006). Why is it POV to sumarize what the people using the term Christianism are saying? I'd be fine with the sentence that currently exists, i.e. "There are also a few authors who use the terms Christianism or Christian nationalism" as long as "in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right." was added to it. Otherwise the article does not detail why these people are using the term. I should add that this info was originally located at the article Christianism but a discussion there felt that that article should be a redirect here.--Alabamaboy 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that I'm ok not calling it a movement (that is probably overkill) but the term is now in use and should be explained here. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing. These sentences were added to the section on Christianism: "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]." I don't dispute this but if people believe that saying "in an attempt to separate the word "Christian" from the supposed political agenda of the religious right" is POV (even when that is a referenced statement) then the disclaimer on Christianism should be removed unless a reference is provided for it. After all, the disclaimer is definately opinion, which is not allowed unless sumarizing a statement from an outside source.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot assume why people are using the term.  We can only cite the use of the term and cite others saying why they think the term is being used.  Otherwise it is POV original research.--Cberlet 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The giant block of text with a POV summary of the views of Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomists probably belongs on the Christian Reconstructionism page of the Dominion Theology page. We can link to it there.  If it goes on this page, it unbalances the entry.  There is now redundant text promoting the Christian Reconstructionists and Theonomist rejection of criticisms relating to their totalitarianism on three pages.  We should pick a page and move most of the discussion there.  I am agnostic on which page it should go--I just object to the same lengthy POV rebuttal being on three pages.--Cberlet 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianism 

message: The "Roots and branches" section suggests interaction and common ground with catholics. This is true, particularly on the level of vcommon financial supporters. The extent to which different protestant dominionists and catholics are willing to cooperate (or not) and why is an important topic. Arch conservatives in both traditions differ in their attitude toeward and willingess (or lack thereof) to work with each other. The relevance of the Institute on Religion and Democracy to Dominionism should be considered in this light, as it is an ecumenical group including many noted neoconservatives, including some (like Richard John Neuhaus) who have stated much (conflicted) opposition to the anti-statist ideas of Reconstructionism, though state religious neutrality is a concept generally rejected all across the religious right, and its rejection has been a crucial theme in the political mobilization of religious conservatives. 70.94.8.139 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more on Catholics 

message: As if the term wasn't loaded enough already, this article is edited by self-confessed critics. Put up a neutrality warning. (Anonymous)
:I strongly agree that this article is biased, but in the other dirrection.  Everything possible is done to undermine the critics point of view while describing it.  For example: "For instance, some critics go so far as to point to a phrase from Chalcedon's website."  The phrase "go so far" carries the unmistakable implication that they are over reaching their bounds and going too far.  A NPOV version of the sentence would simply be "For instance, some critics point to a phrase from Chalcedon's website," which would also simply be better more concise writing.  The entire article is riddled with these subtle ways of painting critics as fanatics. OverZealousFan 14:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The message being responded to is very old. No neutrality warning is currently flagged on the page.--Cberlet 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed. 

message: I don't see how footnote #8 supports the quote. I would like to know the source of the quote.
:Click on the reference # after the quote.  It leads to the Chalcedon web page.  The entry has a mixture of references and web page cites.  Numbers are thus duplicated.  It is very confusing and should be fixed.--Cberlet 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references are messed up 

message: There is no longer anything at this URL so the link to it (The Dominionist) was removed: http://thedominionist.blogspot.com. -- Awinger48 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links list updated 

message: The following has been added to the "Roots and Branches" section as the second and third sentences of the second paragraph: There is some doubt however that Schaeffer in fact has the dominionist views with which he is credited. See Schaeffer and the Christian Right.
If there are any questions concerning this revision please see the following for the discussion with the Administrator who authorized the revision: User_talk:JoshuaZ#Schaeffer_and_Dominionism -- Awinger48 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use a footnote or two rather than directing a reader to another wiki as using wiki to source wiki presents problems.  Remember too, that the source must meet WP:V and WP:RS.  Thanks.  Jim62sch 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote has been added. Thank you for your advice :-) Awinger48 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that looks fine.  I hope you understand why using wiki to source wiki can create problems.  External sources are more easily verifiable because they are unlikely to change.  One down, only 80 billion more wiki issues to deal with.  ;)  Jim62sch 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand, especially since I'm one of the ones changing a wiki. I don't envy your job one bit. Thank you again for your help :-)  Awinger48 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots and Branches 

message: According to the wiki article on Chris Hedges he now works for the National Institute. That's why the word "Former" was added in front of "New York Times reporter."  Also requesting cite for statement of fact that connects Hedges with writing about Dobson and Yugoslavia. He's written other things about Dobson but can't find anything about Yugoslavia and "parallel indoctrination systems."  Thanks for your help with this :-)  --Awinger48 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Hedges 

message: The behavior of Pravknight/68.45.161.241 at this article is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the recent edit warring 

message: "The Christian Origins of the Establishment Clause
In European countries where churches were subject to state control, churchmen became little more than religiously oriented bureaucrats whose Christianity was as deep as the clothes they wore on Sunday mornings.
The established churches in the American colonies were no exception, and dissatisfaction over their “spiritual dryness” led to the movement known as the Great Awakening in the mid–18th century.
Many scholars and politicians caught in the contemporary fight over church and state separation tend to emphasize the deism and anti-Christian currents of the Enlightenment. At the same time, they ignore the impact of this first Great Awakening during the 1740s and 1750s upon American religious and cultural life, which Princeton University scholar Frank Lambert attributes, in part, to the post-revolutionary attitudes in some circles about the institutional connection between the churches and the states.
Additionally, this post–Great Awakening movement was keenly aware of how the institutional dependence of churches upon the state was often detrimental to the quality of the faith expressed in those churches. Thus, they reasoned that the only way to have an authentically pure form of Christianity was to divorce ecclesiastical institutions from their dependence upon the state.
This period led many colonists—especially those in Virginia’s remote western frontier—to defy civil and ecclesiastical authority to preach the message of the “New Birth” without regard to existing institutions and laws. As a result, followers of this movement rejected preachers in the established churches whom they considered unconverted, causing a backlash among those established churches against the new evangelicals.
Coincidentally, both Jefferson and James Madison, hailing from Virginia’s mountain country, came of age amid the Great Awakening struggles between the Protestant non-conformists and the Anglican Church in Virginia. Not surprisingly, this served as the backdrop for their arguments against the formal establishment of the Anglican Church in Virginia and ultimately their case against religious establishments after the ratification of the Constitution. 
This is demonstrated by Jefferson’s 1779 Notes on the State of Virginia, where the founder points out that nearly two-thirds of Virginians belonged to sects arising out of the Great Awakening rather than the established Anglican Church. These Virginians faced serious legal impediments to practicing their faith, and considering that Jefferson came from Charlottesville, in the Virginia mountains, his neighbors’ religious difficulties could not but have affected his thinking on established religion and religious freedom. 
Lambert argues that the evangelicals agreed with the establishment churches about the importance of religion in society; nevertheless, “they argued that true Christianity was voluntary, not coercive, and, therefore, society was best served through free and independent churches preaching the gospel.”
Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, often cited by atheists who try to portray the founder as anti-Christian or as a believer that Christians were bigoted or ignorant because of its explicit usage of those epithets, is actually rooted in this Great Awakening tradition. Madison’s target, however, was not Christianity, but rather the corrupting influence of the state upon the church.
To this end, Madison wrote regarding the English-style institutional domination of the church:
[T]he establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws.... Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation...the Bill [the proposed legal establishment of the Anglican Church in Virginia] is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions.
Despite the claims that Memorial and Remonstrance proves Madison’s irreligiosity, it clearly shows that Madison was indeed a Christian who saw the institutional establishment of a state church as an obstacle to authentic Christianity. (It is unlikely an atheist would refer to non-Christian religions as “false.”)
Debating the Establishment Clause
While Americans came to oppose what they saw as a “tyrannical” Christianity of the governmentally controlled variety, they supported Christianity’s place in the free market of ideas. These undercurrents found a clear voice in the debates over the First Amendment in 1789.
The deliberations show that the first Congress’s intent differed sharply from that of the French revolutionaries who sought to destroy Christianity as a force in society. As 19th-century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed, “The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the infidel [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Legal scholars, such as LSU law professor John Baker, argue that the founders and most educated Americans living during the 18th century understood that a religious establishment was an institutional church under the control of the state, and to which all citizens would be expected to belong. An August 15, 1789, entry in Madison’s papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent Congress from mandating that very thing—it was not a wholesale ban on Christianity’s influence on the nation’s public morality or laws.
The entry says: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law [as had been the practice in many of the colonies], nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....”
Many on the Left make much out of the fact that Madison’s proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a “national religion”—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general “religion.” But their point ignores the historical context for removing the word “national” from the establishment clause. The rejection was rooted in the arguments between the Federalist and anti-Federalist forces, not because they wanted to prevent the government from allowing religious expression in a more general manner. During the debate, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison’s language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty). The question compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
Legal scholars, including Baker, argue that using the term “national government” was unconscionable for both Federalist and anti-Federalist forces. Thus, removing the word “national” from the establishment clause was necessary to secure ratification by the states, many of which were wary of having their authority undercut by the federal government.
Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed language that would have said, “Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience,” which raised uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester of New York. They worried the language could be used to harm religious practice because federal courts might construe the establishment clause in a manner different from Madison’s intent. Almost 220 years later, those objections have proven prophetic.
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which Sherman believed made it impossible for Congress to establish a national religion (since doing so was not among its stated powers).
Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions, but the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop it from the amendment.
The Senate went through several more narrowly targeted versions before reaching the contemporary language.
One version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall freedom of conscience be infringed,” while another read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one particular religious denomination in preference to others.” Ultimately, the Senate rejected the more narrowly targeted language.
The establishment clause did not nullify the religious establishments in states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, nor did it abolish elements of the common law that were connected with Christian belief. Although religious groups were institutionally separate from the state, religion continued to have an impact upon all three branches of government.
In fact, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acknowledged this in the 1822 case of Updegraph v. the Commonwealth: “The constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist…. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury.”
Despite the passage of the establishment clause in 1789, Congress did not stop itself from issuing a proclamation of thanksgiving to God just two months later. Clearly, they saw no contradiction.
Secularists often point to the fact that the Senate ratified a treaty in 1797 with Tripoli, in which the eleventh article states, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
This statement, however, should be understood within the context of the founders’ repudiation of the divine right of kings, which claimed the monarch’s power came from God alone and thus the king was also the head of the church. It was also intended to assert that the United States government—unlike the Christian kings of Europe—was a civil government that didn’t seek to use force to compel the Muslim rulers of North Africa to convert to Christianity, hence the clause, “No pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Finally, the founders, according to Lambert, didn’t equate the government with the nation, which they clearly associated with the people. The founders established a civil government, based upon civil laws, some of which were influenced by Christian principles and morality."
--Pravknight 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An over-abundance of words will not be read.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the establishment clause 

message: Explain to me something what is wrong with further elaborating on an unsupported argument in the article:
Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation."  	+  	Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Chistian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence. These dominionists sometimes make the claim that "America is a Christian nation." By this, some mean that, at one time Christian participation, as Christians, was not feared in the public sphere, and was even a norm. Now, they feel shut out, and feel the need to re-assert their presence as religious people with a valid perspective in the democratic political process and the institutions of the culture. Few, however, articulate a position that could be called theocratic.
- 		 
Dominionist authors such as David Barton and controversial former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and others look to 19th century court rulings for a different perspective on Christianity's role in governement. They argue the U.S. Supreme Court has undermined the framers' intent for the establishment clause since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case.  
		 
Dominionists such as Robertson, Barton and Moore claim the morality expressed in American laws, such as the Blue laws, passed during the early part of American history reflected Christianity's influence upon the law. Such perspectives were advanced in 19th century cases such as Updegraph v. Commonwealth (1824) and Holy Trinity v. Commonwealth (1892), which Domionionist authors including Pat Robertson frequently cite in support of their arguments. 	 
  	 
 		 
The Dominionist Chalcedon Foundation argues: 	 
- 		 
:"Based upon those premises, secularists would have to admit that at the time the Constitution was ratified, America was a full-blown theocracy. Sodomy laws, blasphemy laws, and even Sabbath laws were common in various states. If secularists are crying “theocracy” now, they would’ve marched in the streets of eighteenth-century America."
How many more citations do you want? It's every bit as well sourced as
the ones FeloniousMonk seems refers to every time his judgment is questioned.
I'm looking for an explanation of why this is POV? I refrained from using any weasel words, per WP:WEASEL, and I replaced my earlier citations with law school case citations, per Jim68sch's request.
Additionally, my other edits sought to clean up some of the verbosity that should be avoided. NO PASSIVE VOICE.WP:WTA
Also, if someone refers to themselves as "progressive" and the term itself is POV, it should be replaced with something a bit more neutral and indisputable. Hey, the Dominionists would consider themselves the real progressives, LOL. Dominionists joke among themselves about how the "progressives" have more in common with Atlla the Hun than the great social reformers of history.--Pravknight 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further elaboration 

message: I've removed this new section to talk for discussion since we've had npov issues with its author, who's been notably and dogmatically hostile to this topic. Specifically, I'm concerned about undue weight and the prominence of this view, and I'm interested in seeing cberlet's insight as to it's notability. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dogmatically hostile. Gimme a break. Why do you hate Christians? This article is hardly NPOV, and it needs balance. I will restore it. Isn't this poisoning the well by removing it. CBerlet is not a theologian, and isn't competant to discuss theological matters. I'm hostile to what I see as an effort to paint all Christians with a broad brush and impose partisanship. It's funny that I get accused of NPOV violations on this when I simply point out that Dominionism is controversial among Evangelicals.  --Pravknight 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are? Cberlet is a widely recognized/cited expert on the topic, and his work qualifies as a reliable source per our guidelines. FeloniousMonk 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a political operative, period. FeloniousMonk, I'm sick of your constant harrassment. Secondly, I don't care about your stupid RfC. He's not a theologian, and neither are you. This article is nothing but a bigoted, hate-filled polemic. Widely respected by whom, Leftists. This is a highly biased article that doesn't conform to NPOV standards. The only consensus here is a consensus of one, you. I reject the RfC as nothing but harassment.--Pravknight 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PK, knock off the pity party crap and the unfounded assertions and the childish behaviour.  It's not a party of one, by the way.  Oh, and this, "Why do you hate Christians?" is a personal attack. Jim62sch 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Jim (which is not to say that I disagree with PK), in all except his own personal attacks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section moved from the article for discussion 

message: Too much of this entry is uncited Original Research not properly cited. There is plenty of conservative evangelical and Christian Right scholarship and writing challenging the notion of dominionism from several vantage points.  It belongs in this article, replacing the uncited essays that now have proliferated. I just brought in a block of text with a long section by a moderate evangelical scholar.  We need more of this cited material, and less time-wasting blogging on this discussion page. It is a waste of time.--Cberlet 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's focus on editing text 

message: I just came across this article today. The article is a mess, to put it bluntly: too many quotations that need to be summarized, original research in many sections, unattributed opinions, and the use if weasel words galores such as "however". Our readers expect a concise article on the subject, written in a dispassionate tone, in which significant viewpoints are presented and attributed to published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live a full and rich life if I never again saw the construction, 'Smith says foo, however Jones notes bar.' Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Count me in... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Compare the raging discussion at the associated template: Template_talk:Dominionism. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are abundant sources for this subject. Rather than engage in endless discussions about the subject, editors may find it more productive to research these sources and provide good material to create a readable and interesting article. I added some material, but do not have much time or inclination to research this further. But I will add a "Further reading" section in which I will list books and journals on the subject. Editors can then endeavor to explore these if they wish and add new material to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about making a "Dominionism" subsection in the Christian Reconstructionism article instead?  I have solid references for Christian Reconstructionism. However, I am left with the impression that Dominionism (when not describing Christian Reconstructionism) is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. --LC 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really bad idea. Christian Reconstructionism is only one form of Dominionism. Dominionism is a term used in several of scholarly works. Just because you don't like a term used by scholars is not a valid reason to seek to delete the page. Please see the work of Sara Diamond on Dominionism, and please stop calling her work a "conspiracy theory."--Cberlet 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey.  The article by Sara Diamond actually speaks of Dominionism in terms of Christian Reconstructionism too, by the way.  The definition here is so sweeping that I would have to wonder if any conservative Christian who did not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, the free flow of pornography, etc, would not be tagged as a "Dominionist". Frjohnwhiteford 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is in very poor state 

message: I cannot recall saying anywhere here that the work of Sara Diamond is a conspiracy theory. But since someone brought Diamond up, why does her only scholarly work, a 1993 UCB dissertation, fail to mention Dominionism, or Dominion Theology, or Christian Reconstructionism, or Rushdoony, or Gary North? Less than two years later she is speaking about a Dominionst cabal taking over the country. What is going on here? --LC 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "conspiracy theory" language is useful for explaining what the work on Dominionism looks like, from the opposing point of view. However, it is provocative - and since I've used the term myself, I suggest from myself that we find a better term to explain this perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is, find a term which is not prejudicial to the observations of these writers, but is adequately descriptive of the reason that we cannot accede with their conclusions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sara diamond 

message: If this is the definition:
"Within the Christian Right, concern over social, cultural, and political issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, sympathy for Israel sometimes expressed as Christian Zionism, the banning of teacher-led prayer in the public schools, and the reduction of overtly fundamentalist Christian perspectives in the public square has prompted participation in elections since the 1970s. Activists and intellectuals in the Christian Right work in a coalition of religious conservatives, operating through the Republican Party to promote their influence."
By this definition, three Critics listed on the Dominionism Template need to also be listed as advocates of Dominionism:
*Thomas Ice
*Dave Hunt
*Hal Lindsey 
All three fit this definition perfectly.  
Also, aside from their not being active in the Republican Party or Zionists, I think we should add these notable Dominionists as well:
*Pope Benedict XVI
*Mother Teresa
Another problem with this definition, aside from its sweeping all pro-life Christians under this heading, is that it contradicts the Supersessionism part of the Template, which is in fact a belief held by real Christian Reconstructionists.
Frjohnwhiteford 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really must object to the continuous misrepresentations and false statements by Frjohnwhiteford. I resent having my time wasted with disruptive trivializations and bogus arguments. The paragraph cited above is not a definition of Dominionism. Dominionism, Dominionism Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are three related but different things. The same material is posted by Frjohnwhiteford on the Dominionism Template page. This discussion is contentious and difficult enough without this type of disruptive juvenile crap.--Cberlet 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the definition in the article given for "Generic Dominionism".  If it isn't, where can we find such a definition in that section, and why is this how the generic Dominionism section begins?  I don't believe it is trivial, bogus, contentious, or juvenile crap to point out that the definition of Generic Dominionism applies exactly to three of the primary critics of "Dominionsim" list on the Dominionism Template, or that it is so broad as to include any pro-life Christian who doesn't think gay marriage should be the law of the land -- because that does in fact include the Pope and Mother Theresa.  Tell me why it isn't so, rather than engaging in ad hominem. Frjohnwhiteford 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional advocates of "Soft Dominionism" 

message: Some liberal or left critics of Christianity and religion in general often suggest that Dominionism and Reconstructionism are the same thing. No serious scholar makes this mistake. There is far too much about Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony on this page. That's why I moved it to the Christian Reconstructionism page and deleted it here. The discussion by Martin is sufficient. If you want to defend posting copious material about Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony on this page, please find a scholarly cite to back this up. --Cberlet 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cberlet that too many are attempting to repair the framework in which this subject is regarded by these scholars, instead of describing the topic according to that framework.  This prevents editors from talking about the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Reconstructionism and Rushdoony 

message: The article has had a through brush-up. Let's let it settle for a while. I know I need to read through several of the references. No doubt there will be improvements to make, but there's no hurry. We are talking about religion and politics, and it's natural for tempers to fray. I know I do better work when I take the time to read and think before writing. That applies to the talk page as much as the article. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slowly does it 

message: Regarding some of the comments above, please remember:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good advice, ≈ jossi ≈. In addition we've learned that, if you feel attacked it's helpful to try to figure out what provoked it, and if it's a misunderstanding and not mere malice (assume good faith), then you can usually demonstrate that you're on the same page by making a conciliatory edit in the article.  It's very difficult to prove that you understand, by arguing - especially in a controversial article.  The thesis of this article is that, there are scholars who fear that free democracy has no share in the kingdom of God.  Forgive my presumption, if I'm off the mark, but the question of whether this is true or not seems to be the cause of anger.  But, it would be wise, if that's the issue, to avoid the provocative question and focus instead on clearing up misunderstandings.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] 

message: Short of some further illumination from Chip on what he means by the term and what sources he has to support the use of the term, I suggest that this section of the article be amended along the following lines:
Chip Berlet defines "Soft" or "Generic" Dominion as "the belief that "America is a Christian Nation," and that Christians need to re-assert control over political and cultural institutions..." (Ref)  This definition is however so broad that it would encompass the views of Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, and Dave Hunt... all of whom have been highly critical of Dominion Theology.  Berlet bases his distinction on Sara Diamond, who distinguishes between those who advocate Dominion Theology, and those she alleges are influenced in some way by it. However a review of Diamond's work in the American Political Science Review (one review in the most prestigious political science journal of the world) said that Diamond's 1995 Roads to Dominion book lacks "theoretical and historical substance" and that her "analysis is colored by her political bias." (APSR, 1997, 91:1) 
Stanly Kurtz criticizes applying the term "Dominionist" to those allegedly influenced by those who openly advocate Dominion Theology:
:"All you have to do is quote a fringe Dominionist desperate to prove that his radical ideas are catching on. Dominionists have a long-term political strategy to establish a full-blown American theocracy based on Old Testament law. And look! Some other Christians want to participate in the political process, too. They even believe in developing a long-term political strategy! Ah ha! That must mean that, even though they are “unaware of the original source of their ideas,” conservative Christians are in fact under the influence of authentic Dominionists. Voila. By quoting a pathetic Dominionist extremist’s desperate efforts to prove his own influence, clever liberals can now argue that the ultimate goal of all conservative Christians is the re-institution of slavery, and execution for blasphemers and witches." Stanley Kurtz (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved on 2007-03-27.  
Or, we could just delete this whole section and focus on real Dominionist ideas... Frjohnwhiteford 03:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree that Berlet's book can be cited as a source, but if Berlet's books and articles are the only real source for this distinction, saying "Scholars and journalists say..." is not entirely accurate.  Some way of noting the scope of who is actually using the definition in this way needs to be noted.  Perhaps "certain political activists and authors have said..."  Now if there are other writers that can be cited that use the term in the same way, then this would need to be reconsidered accordingly.Frjohnwhiteford 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic/Soft Dominionism 

message: The purpose of my recent edits is not to dictate what the article should say, but to indicate what it ought to look like.  I hope that my comments on this talk page will be helpful in making that distinction clear. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration edits 

message: The first helpful distinction that we've struck, is the journalistic/scholarly distinction: the "broad" and "narrow" distinction.  I regret that Chip didn't have time to look at my "narrow" definition before another user reverted it.  Please comment on this language, Chip:
: Dominionism is a trend among some socially conservative Christians, especially in the United States, to transform America into a nation under God; meaning, these activists seek either a nation dominated by Christians, or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of law.[citation needed]— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  journalistic v scholarly 

message: Although I've been an administrator for quite a while now, I don't know how to ban users - since I've never done it.  But there are some people here whose contributions to the discussion are only personal attacks, and who revert rather than collaborate.  What's the procedure for preventing them from putting any more flies in our frosting?  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, as an admin working on this page, you should not be involved at all in the process.  Using admin tools to "win" a perceived edit war is taboo.  Additionally, while you might not like the comments of certain users, unless the person specifically attacks someone, as in "you're a fool" or "you don't know what you're talking about" you need to tread very carefully.  Also note that comments directed at a specific position are permitted as they are ad rem comments.  •Jim62sch• 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverts will be counted.  Personal attacks will be noted.  Collaboration will be welcomed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking for personal attacks is questionable; indef blocking (which is effectively the same as a ban) is done only for specific circumstances. This includes Vandalism only accounts (I'm talking PENISPENISPENIS or similar unquestionable vandalism here) and sock accounts created by indef blocked or banned users which are created to avoid the block/ban. As an administrator, if you feel someone should be indef blocked for disruption, personal attacks, and generally being a negative net result on the project, post on WP:CSN. This will start the process to determine whether a community ban is indicated. Otherwise, only Jimbo or ArbCom can ban. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for taking time to clarify. Hopefully, administrative action will probably not be necessary, if the collaborative process is restored. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking advice: how to ban 

message: :I'm really unclear as to why this was included.  It seems like a big "so what".  Maybe Jeremiah can explain the relevance:
::Stewardship over the earth, as examplified in Genesis 1:26-28, is also one of four foundational principles of the CDA, a Christian democratic and centrist political party. 
:•Jim62sch• 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is worthwhile to clarify that the command to take dominion over the earth is not the exclusive property of the right wing.  This should probably be pointed out in a more general way, however, rather than by listing specific examples (which is confusing). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand the point now, but yes, it could be phrased more clearly.  As we know from history, the desire for absolute power is a hallmark of people from all ideologies and religions.  Theocracy, however, is generally a right-wing idea, although certain tenets of socialism, as well as a less literal reading of the bible, especially a reading that focuses on certain "liberal" aspects in the gospels, could support a theocracy.  •Jim62sch• 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that in the present historical context, explicit theocracy would be by definition a "right wing" idea.  This is not to deny, however, that "left wing" free democratic ideas, or Christian democratic ideas may be "theocratic" in a more subtle or implicit sense.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. •Jim62sch• 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: That phrase is rather odd, there simply must be a better way to say it. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to describes a trend noted by sociologists. Better? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to journalists for now. Dominionism is not discussed in academia. --LC 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed it to journalists and sociologists, until the credentials of the writers can be described without prejudice. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sara Diamond is a sociologist with a Ph.D. and Roads to Dominion was published by a scholarly publishing house.--Cberlet 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sociologists is really the better word.  That journalists use the term merely means that they picked it up off the buzz-word list. •Jim62sch• 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wouldn't want the article to imply that journalism is a derivative discipline, however. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet this is giving false authority to these views. Diamond has never written about Dominionism in any academic journals, and her Ph.D. work does not mention it. --LC 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  To distinguish her work as a journalist, from her work as a sociologist, will require a closely discerning eye. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it will require a reliable source, otherwise it would be OR.  129.15.160.51 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "reliable source" is what I mean by "a closely discerning eye". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already provided above, from the American Political Science Review. --LC 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And where does the Federici review say that this book, which Federici says comes out of her dissertation, is journalism and not sociology?  He is critical of the analysis, yes.  He says that the writing style is journalistic, but it's simply false to say that the Federici review can in any way be used to support this assertion.  You shouldn't misrepresent sources, LC.  129.15.160.51 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot recall giving a positive notion that Diamond should be seen as a journalist. Call her an author if you like. But to call her work scholarly demands that she has written about Dominionism (specifically) in at least some academic journal of some sort. --LC 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you say that, "writing journalistically, sociologist Sara Diamond opines blah, blah"?  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, because that is espousing Federici's POV as a fact.  Unless there is some sort of general agreement on the issue (and I don't mean "general agreement among Wikipedia editors") or a court ruling or something like that, we can't do that.  We can't take one reviewer's opinion as a fact.  Guettarda 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, Diamond herself may in some way make it clear that she is speaking "journalistically".  Right?  Alternatively, we may simply point out that Frederici characterizes Diamonds "style" as journalistic - as long as we do so in such a way that prevents the transference or importation of a settled judgment, that her comments so-characterized are in fact journalistic.  Am I following your guide, here? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your concern for strict accuracy should receive every accommodation. You are now running up against only my ignorance.  This obstacle can be overcome easily, by boldly overcoming my ignorance, pouring your observation into the right place in the flow of the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  perceived trend 

message: ===Reviews of Roads to Dominion===
"... an excellent and highly educational book by a sociologist who writes in readable English. It teems with information about the history, leaders, organizations, and ideas of the major conservative movements of the last 50 years in the U.S.... Nobody exceeds Diamond... in the range and depth of information she provides about the conservative movements she has studied in historical perspective: how they arise, their resources, their ideologies, and the reasons for their successes and failures."
-Choice
"A unique work that may well remain unmatched for years to come. It has an incredible breadth and depth of scholarship and reporting on its subject matter....Read this book, if your read no other, between now and the start of the next Millennium."
-The American Reporter
"...provides a strong sociological study of the U.S.... One of the more comprehensive studies available, this is a must' for anyone studying right wing group movements."
-The Bookwatch 
"Should be required reading for any serious student of the subject."
-Political Science Quarterly 
"This is, without a doubt, the most important soci ological study of the U.S. right ever written. In a field so often dominated by polemic and jeremiad, this is the most lucid, systematic, sober, and sobering analysis I have ever read. This really is a landmark study, and will shape the contours of future research for generations to come."
-Gerry O'Sullivan, Fordham University 
===Reviews of Not by Politics Alone===
"The Christian Right's growth into a formidable social movement and political power over the last couple of decades has provoked alarm in many quarters. In this sweeping and well-documented survey of the movement, Diamond concludes that its survival is due to the diversity of its many subcultural institutions and to its links with the Republican Party....Like her Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, this is a balanced, eye-opening and accessible read."
-Publishers Weekly
"Opposing the Left's tendency to demonize the Christian Right, Diamond insists on taking it seriously, endeavoring to understand the sources of its strong appeal to millions of U.S. citizens."
-Booklist
"Sara Diamond demonstrates once again that she is one of the best researchers of right-wing movements in the United States....A 'must read'."
-Catherine A. Lugg, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey
"Diamond's strength as a researcher is in the details. Through her careful case studies--of, among other subjects, home schooling, millennialism and antigay activism--you see the Christian right blending its religious arguments with ones deployed by the secular elites they despise."
-The Nation
"Enormously informative....Written with great authority, and a measure of empathy as well....This is a first-rate study of a hugely important contemporary movement."
-Frances Fox Piven, coauthor of Why Americans Don't Vote 
The personal attacks on the scholarship of Sara Diamond are shameful.--Cberlet 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are referring to me? I'm not making any personal attacks. Diamond's book is no doubt a valuable reference work on the American Right. Furthermore, these reviews do not attest to the concept of Dominionism in particular. None of these reviews even mention Dominionism. --LC 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that Chip is having a hard time hearing the subtle distinction that you are making.  I also had to read these sentences several times, to understand.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point so subtle as to be evanescent.  I'd wager that Chip gets your point just fine. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure - because, Chip perceived what LC said as being an attack on Diamond's credentials as a scholar; but, what LC was actually pointing out is that, Diamond does not seem to have commented on "Dominionism" in her capacity as a scholar.  She does not use this term in her scholarly, peer-reviewed writings.  But she does use it (or might use it - we'd need to see the support) in an avocational capacity, as a commentator, an essayist, a shaper of opinion and action.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seemed like an attack to me as well, and the point that "None of these reviews even mention Dominionism" is not really relevant.  Additionally, whether she has yet used the term Dominionism in her "scholarly" works does not seem germane, either.  In our society, when someone whose scholarly credentials are well-established speaks, their words carry the weight of scholarship.  Yes, this is a societal version of the argumentum ad verecundiam, but it is a fallacy which we, in America at least, freely accept.  Even on this page, I've noted that a similar phenomenon esists: Frjohn is allowed much more leeway regarding argumenta ad hominem than is anyone else, simply, I suspect, because he has self-identified as a pastor. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that you think he is treated preferentially should be treated as significant.  It might a clue that we're overlooking what you're saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Mark - you issue warnings to everyone who speaks slightly out of turn, you issue veiled threats to block people...but you haven't said a word about John's repeated use of insults, his lack of civility and his apparent unwillingness to be polite.  It's very clear that you are treating him differently.  Guettarda 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to treat him differently.  My problem is that I think I understand him, and I'm not sure that I understand how he is offending - what I read as frustration and confusion, you seem to be reading as attacks.  But anyway, although I'm sorry that I made myself seem important to working things out, I will try harder to sympathize and to see if I might help, somehow. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be an accurate statement.  I do not think John is being treated differently, I know he is.  If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty safe to say it is a duck.  •Jim62sch• 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I will take your word for it, and I'll try to repair that. Please continue to be patient with me; I'm having trouble seeing things your way, but I am trying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sara Diamond is a noted scholar 

message: "The Christian Right's growth into a formidable social movement and political power over the last couple of decades has provoked alarm in many quarters. In this sweeping and well-documented survey of the movement, Diamond concludes that its survival is due to the diversity of its many subcultural institutions and to its links with the Republican Party....Like her Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, this is a balanced, eye-opening and accessible read."
-Publishers Weekly
"Opposing the Left's tendency to demonize the Christian Right, Diamond insists on taking it seriously, endeavoring to understand the sources of its strong appeal to millions of U.S. citizens."
-Booklist
"Sara Diamond demonstrates once again that she is one of the best researchers of right-wing movements in the United States....A 'must read'."
-Catherine A. Lugg, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers--The State University of New Jersey
"Diamond's strength as a researcher is in the details. Through her careful case studies--of, among other subjects, home schooling, millennialism and antigay activism--you see the Christian right blending its religious arguments with ones deployed by the secular elites they despise."
-The Nation
"Enormously informative....Written with great authority, and a measure of empathy as well....This is a first-rate study of a hugely important contemporary movement."
-Frances Fox Piven, coauthor of Why Americans Don't Vote 
The personal attacks on the scholarship of Sara Diamond are shameful.--Cberlet 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are referring to me? I'm not making any personal attacks. Diamond's book is no doubt a valuable reference work on the American Right. Furthermore, these reviews do not attest to the concept of Dominionism in particular. None of these reviews even mention Dominionism. --LC 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that Chip is having a hard time hearing the subtle distinction that you are making.  I also had to read these sentences several times, to understand.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point so subtle as to be evanescent.  I'd wager that Chip gets your point just fine. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure - because, Chip perceived what LC said as being an attack on Diamond's credentials as a scholar; but, what LC was actually pointing out is that, Diamond does not seem to have commented on "Dominionism" in her capacity as a scholar.  She does not use this term in her scholarly, peer-reviewed writings.  But she does use it (or might use it - we'd need to see the support) in an avocational capacity, as a commentator, an essayist, a shaper of opinion and action.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seemed like an attack to me as well, and the point that "None of these reviews even mention Dominionism" is not really relevant.  Additionally, whether she has yet used the term Dominionism in her "scholarly" works does not seem germane, either.  In our society, when someone whose scholarly credentials are well-established speaks, their words carry the weight of scholarship.  Yes, this is a societal version of the argumentum ad verecundiam, but it is a fallacy which we, in America at least, freely accept.  Even on this page, I've noted that a similar phenomenon esists: Frjohn is allowed much more leeway regarding argumenta ad hominem than is anyone else, simply, I suspect, because he has self-identified as a pastor. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that you think he is treated preferentially should be treated as significant.  It might a clue that we're overlooking what you're saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Mark - you issue warnings to everyone who speaks slightly out of turn, you issue veiled threats to block people...but you haven't said a word about John's repeated use of insults, his lack of civility and his apparent unwillingness to be polite.  It's very clear that you are treating him differently.  Guettarda 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to treat him differently.  My problem is that I think I understand him, and I'm not sure that I understand how he is offending - what I read as frustration and confusion, you seem to be reading as attacks.  But anyway, although I'm sorry that I made myself seem important to working things out, I will try harder to sympathize and to see if I might help, somehow. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be an accurate statement.  I do not think John is being treated differently, I know he is.  If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty safe to say it is a duck.  •Jim62sch• 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I will take your word for it, and I'll try to repair that. Please continue to be patient with me; I'm having trouble seeing things your way, but I am trying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews of ''Not by Politics Alone''

message: Back to the Soft Dominionism section, which still needs a lot of work. What is currently posted goes off on a tangent about America not being a Christian nation.  This is clearly promoting a particular POV.  If it is going to remain, arguments that America is a Christian nation should also be presented.  But again, it seems to me that the focus here is too narrowly American in any case. Frjohnwhiteford 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too narrowly American?  America is the radix argumentorum in this case.  •Jim62sch• 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Nation