Religion
Related: About this forumThe Radical Theology That Could Make Religious Freedom a Thing of the Past
Even devout Christians should fear these influential leaders' refusal to separate church and state.
by David R. Brockman
Published Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:57 am CST
Though its seldom mentioned by name, its one of the major forces in Texas politics today: dominion theology, or dominionism. What began as a fringe evangelical sect in the 1970s has seen its influence mushroom so much so that sociologist Sara Diamond has called dominionism the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right. (Italics hers.) Thats especially true here in Texas, where dominionist beliefs have, over the last decade, become part and parcel of right-wing politics at the highest levels of government.
So, what is it? Dominionism fundamentally opposes Americas venerable tradition of church-state separation in fact, dominionists deny the Founders ever intended that separation in the first place. According to Frederick Clarkson, senior fellow for religious liberty at the non-profit social justice think tank Political Research Associates, dominionists believe that Christians have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions including government until the second coming of Jesus. And that should worry all Texans Christians and non-Christians alike.
Dominionism comes in soft and hard varieties. Hard dominionism (sometimes called Christian Reconstructionism), as Clarkson describes it, explicitly seeks to replace secular government, and the U.S. Constitution, with a system based on Old Testament law.
The father of hard dominionism, the late Presbyterian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, called for his followers to take back government
and put it in the hands of Christians.
https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)they should be made to explain why Jefferson left explicit instructions that, of all his accomplishment, the only 3 to be mentioned on his tombstore were:
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia
No doubt we'd be told it really wasn't what he meant.
rug
(82,333 posts)Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1357
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)That's one sentence of about 500 words.
rug
(82,333 posts)dflprincess
(28,079 posts)I don't think I would have gotten this "run on sentencce" past my 7th grade English teacher. (I bet you wouldn't have either.)
PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)Because I'm not living in a theocracy.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Of course, the radical rightwing Christians are part of the current bizarre Republican coalition that includes the laissez-faire corporatists, the libertarians, the balanced-budget conservatives, the social conservatives, the racist anti-integrationists, the xenophobic nativists -- together with who knows what other strange beings we find when we turn over rocks -- but it's an unstable coalition IMO, and it's based on the principle that it's sometimes easier to unite people in outraged opposition than it is to generate a productive consensus
I guess all bets might be off if we have a galvanizing national catastrophe, but right now I can't see those nuts making much more headway