Talk:Dominionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Back to "usage"

Saying "sociologists, journalists and critics" isn't neutral - what basis do we have to say that the people (other than sociologists and journalists) who use the term should be classified as "critics"? Why not "observers"? Unless you are a theatre critic or something like that, "critic" isn't a neutral descriptor, it's a descriptor that's laden with value judgments. I don't think "others" is the best either, it's vague to the point of being useless. But given Chip's comments about the distinction between the narrower, more scholarly usage, and the wider, more journalistic usage (and probably even wider usage by the average blogger), it's probably useful...although, of course, we shouldn't just stick in language to remind us - we should explicitly address the distinctions in usage...well, once we find a source, or Chip write one that we can use :) Guettarda 04:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The term critic may be laden with the implication of value judgments, but that's exactly what happens when an observer makes a judgment (which is what the root word for "critic" means) that something is either good, or bad, or something in between. A neutral observer makes no such judgments, they just observe. The critics we are talking about are making judgments for better or for worse, there is just no two ways about that. Frjohnwhiteford 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you conclude that everyone who comments on dominionism is making a value judgment? Is this meets your standard of self-identification, or are you working off court rulings? Please do provide these sources - I trust that you would never claim that there is "no two ways about this" without having sources at hand? Guettarda 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me how you can possibly comment about something being either good, bad, or something somewhere between the two, without making a value judgment. I suppose if he had a Vulcan here who simply recorded the various opinions about Dominionism, he would not be making a value judgment about Dominionism, though when he was selecting whose opinions were worth discussing (assuming he would not have a completely comprehensive record of all opinions ever written on the subject), he would be making value judgments then... but all the opinions he recorded, would be value judgments in any case. In the eyes of God, some of those opinions may be right on the nose, and some may be completely off the wall, but they are all judgments. We can only hope that when we make such value judgments -- which we all do, all the time -- that we "judge with righteous judgment". Frjohnwhiteford 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course if you want to be such a relativist about it, there is no such thing as an observation independent of the cultural context of the observer. But Wikipedia generally isn't written from such an extreme relativist perspective. Guettarda 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of relativism -- it's a matter of recognizing that we all have a persepctive that is particular... everyone, but God, who has the only truly complete and objective view of reality.

Also, the fact that you did not address my question is a good indication that you cannot address my point with logic. Frjohnwhiteford 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your question - your discourse on relativism is irrelevant to the article. Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. Don't abuse them. Guettarda 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My question, in response to your objection that the term "critic" implied making a value judgement, and presumably tha this was not accurate, I asked: "Please tell me how you can possibly comment about something being either good, bad, or something somewhere between the two, without making a value judgment." Unless you are saying that you concede that those who are critical of "dominionism" are making value judgments, I do not see that you have addressed my question. If you do concede my point, I do not see why you are objecting to the term "critic". Frjohnwhiteford 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you simply filter out what is being said, because you do not understand it, you block that perspective from the article - which is POV pushing. Frjohn was not talking about relativism.

Please understand, however, that I am not commenting on your intelligence. I'm alerting you to the fact that you are hearing things differently than they are intended. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If John is not talking about relativism, what do you call his perspective? He appears to be saying that no one but God is an unbiased observer - which is, for our purposes, the same as saying that there is no such thing as an observer, everyone has an opinion. Which is, of course, relativism. Guettarda 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same as saying that there is no such thing as an observer. But it is simply a fact that no one is a completely neutral observer. That's one of the reasons why peer review is important, because scholars try to keep each other honest about their personal biases. Frjohnwhiteford 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Guettarda forgot the word "objective"... •Jim62sch• 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As Frjohn proved by noting "In the eyes of God". Obviously, this in itslf is a value judgment as he has determined a god to be extant. See the fun we can have with relativism? •Jim62sch• 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

God is the only one in the universe who sees things as they really are. I realize you don't believe that, of course, but you probably agree that no human has an absolutely objective view of reality. Frjohnwhiteford 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that, and that would be my value judgment.

On the other hand, as I have said before, humans are inherently subjective, so anything, especially concepts such as truth, good, bad, etc., are inherrently subjective as well.

I'd suggest you abide by WP:NPA, "Also, the fact that you did not address my question is a good indication that you cannot address my point with logic." could have been stated in a way not equivalent with, "You can't even answer my question, dumbass". In any case, Guettarda did answer your question by noting that "there is no such thing as an observation independent of the cultural context of the observer." •Jim62sch• 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not commenting on Guettarda's mental capabilities. She could be the smartest woman in the world, but an argument that cannot be made logically, cannot be made logically no matter how smart you may be. Frjohnwhiteford 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your system of beliefs has bearing on the article (neither does Jim's, neither does Mark's, neither does Jossi's, neither do mine). And, as Jim said, please refrain from making personal attacks. Guettarda 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please bear with us. We aren't attacking you. We are trying to let you know that you aren't hearing what we're saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's simply not hearing it the way you want it to be heard, which desire is of course based on your worldview. In other words, Guettarda is hearing what you are saying, but is not buying.

John, Guettarda's argument was quite logical: that it did not follow the path you had hoped for (and for which you no doubt had already construccted counter-arguments) speaks more to your conception of logic than it does to any deficiency on his part. •Jim62sch• 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could outline the logic of Guettarda's argument, which was that the word "critic" was biased, because it implied the making of value judgments. You have conceded that we have have something less than a purely objective view of things. Do you deny that any time we comment on something as being either good, bad, or something in between we are making a value judgment? Do you find the word "critic" to be inherently biased? Which statement of the following do you find to be the most accurate and informative statement of the facts: "Chip is a writer on the subject of Dominionism", "Chip is an observer of Dominionism", "Chip is an opinion maker on Dominionism", "Chip is a critic of Dominionism", "Chip is an opponent of Dominionism"? And, just so you will know, I had no prepared counter arguments for Guettarda's answer, because a) I didn't know what it would be, if I got one, and b) I figured it was most likely that I would not get a direct answer to my question because to directly answer the question is to demonstrate the flaw in Guettarda's original assertions -- though, again, I am always prepared to be proven wrong with a good answer... it has happened many times before, and once in a while I have completely changed my mind on a subject after a good argument. Frjohnwhiteford 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To depart a bit from Guettarda, the word "critic" is not inherently biased, but depends on how it is used (most usually in a negative sense). The sense of the word changes depending on the syntactic and semantic contruction of the sentence in which it is used. Any time a construction like "critics of chili note that it is too spicy" is used we are waiting for the "but" that signals a rebuttal. •Jim62sch• 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But the people who we are talking about, who speak critically of Dominionism, are clearly critics. Chip is a critic of Dominionism. He thinks it is a bad set of ideas. He also speaks of critics himself, and by no means is he using the term in a negative way. See: [1] where he speaks of critics, and of criticizing dominionists, for example: "Crafting an appropriate response depends on what sector of the Christian Right we are criticizing..." This makes him something other than a neutral observer, but one who has a position that he advocates, and positions that he opposes. And I am sure he would not dispute that. Frjohnwhiteford 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in that case the rest of the sentence determines the semantic sense of "critic", which is what I think I noted above. •Jim62sch• 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in danger of seeming to pretend to speak instead of Frjohn - which would be disrespectful toward both of you. However, speaking in sympathy with what Frjohn saying, I acknowledge that what he's saying appears to you as you describe it, and since I've elicited the same reaction on other occassions in this discussion, I'll continue try to find opportunity to clear up this cause of misunderstanding. Right now, I can't see the way to do that; and hopefully Frjohn will find the proper angle from which to expose and eliminate the problem. Thanks for your patience. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda - if we don't use the word "critic", then the alternative "observer" is redundant. I think that what we're looking for is a word that describes those who are writing or commenting on the dangers, or the potential benefits of Dominionism. The word "critic" is less clumsy than "evaluator" or "editorialist" - but I think that's the third type of observer that we will be be seeking quotes from. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - you added the word "critics", I removed it because it introduces subtle bias, a negative judgment these people. I'm not sure why the qualifiers are useful at all, but whatever they are, "critic" is not ok if we want to write an NPOV article. Guettarda 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no bias in referring to people who oppose a particular set of ideas as "critics". I am proud to say that I am a critic of Communism, Baby-killing, and wife-beating. I doubt that Chip feels offended by being called a critic of Dominionism either. Frjohnwhiteford 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Critic and opponent are not synonymous. Given that you've stated that you know that critic is from κρινω, it would seem a bit odd that you should conflate the two terms, unless you wished to prove Guettarda's point. •Jim62sch• 14:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "critic" is used in two senses, both of which imply judgment. A textual critic is judging which texts are the most accurate. A movie critic judges which movies are best, and picks them apart for their pros and cons. A critic of movies has made the judgment that movies are bad... and lays out the case for why that is, because they oppose movies (as some very conservative Christian and Muslim groups do). A critic of wife-beating or baby-killing is not trying to determine who is the best at it, they oppose the practice. A critic of Dominionism is not trying to determine who the best Dominionists are, they oppose dominionism. Now, if you prefer the word "opponent" to "critic", that makes no difference to me... but let's not call people who oppose Dominionism "observers" or "opinion makers" -- they oppose dominionism, and I am sure are proud to say so. Frjohnwhiteford 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A point that is only missing logic to recommend it. •Jim62sch• 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jim, you would care to lay out the logical flaws to the argument that all evaluations involve judgment, or that all of the normal uses of the word "critic" describe people who make judgments. Quite honestly, I can't believe we are even debating such an obvious and undeniable point. Do you dislike being called a critic of things you are critical of? I happily wear the label when it comes to the things I oppose. And can there be any doubt that people such as Chip are opposed to and are critical of Dominionism? Does any one seriously debat that? Frjohnwhiteford 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri)It's not necessarily the issue of judgment, it's the continued conflation of critical and opposed that irks me. If I were to write critical definition of the Bible, I would say, "The Bible is a book, in several different forms, that contains a series of religious writings. The Bible was written between the 8th Century BC and the 2nd Century AD. It is considered to be sacred by adherents of several Abrahamic religions" I have cast no true "judgment", other than having made a decision to define it neutrally, I have merely described it. In such an instance, I am neither opposing nor supporting the Bible, yet my definition is critical. •Jim62sch• 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

John said "let's not call people who oppose Dominionism "observers" or "opinion makers" -- they oppose dominionism, and I am sure are proud to say so".

Mark said: "I see your point'".

Mark, if you see his point, will you please do the rest of us the favour of explaining it?  :::::::Please remember the point that this whole conversation is in reference to:

On what basis do you conclude that everyone who comments on dominionism is making a value judgment? Is this meets your standard of self-identification, or are you working off court rulings? Please do provide these sources - I trust that you would never claim that there is "no two ways about this" without having sources at hand? Guettarda 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it reasonable to characterise people as having any specific opinion, if you refuse to provide even a single source or reference to support your assertion? How does John have a point that these people should be called "critics" when he refuses to support his opinion with anything other than rhetoric and insults? Please do explain, because sadly I cannot make head or tail of the logic of his argument. Guettarda 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The word sounds critical, though - as in "critic => disapproves / critique == disapprobation / criticize == disapprove". The word we're looking for is something like "opinion-maker" - but that particular word has the ring of marketing to it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What would be the problem with simply stating this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism is a term used to describe a trend among socially conservative Christians, as being part of a movement to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action seeking either a nation dominated by Christians, or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of Biblical law. There are various uses of the term, and the use and application of it is disputed.

Obviously it's an improvement on the current working (which is awfully clumsy). I suppose my problem is with "is a term" - given that Christian nationalism redirects here, given that dominionism encompassing things like Christian reconstructionism (or is an offshoot of reconstructionism), then saying in the lead that the article is about the term dominionism is a little misleading. Guettarda 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this, Guettarda? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism is used to describe a trend among socially conservative Christians, as being part of a movement to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action seeking either a nation dominated by Christians, or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of Biblical law. There are various uses of the term Dominionism, and its use and application of it is disputed.

Hmmmm, how about "a nation dominated by Christians, or a Christian nation implementing some or all Biblical laws."--Cberlet 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, so which of the 613 laws (commandments) turn into US law? And, is there clearcut agreement on many of those 613? •Jim62sch• 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to R.J. Rushdoony, founder of Christian Reconstructionism, the most militant form of Dominionism, all Biblical laws would supersede other man-made laws in the U.S. --Cberlet 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but have you ever talked to two Reconstructionists at the same time? They do not, and cannot agree on precisely how Biblical law should supersede man-made law. The reason it's hard to agree on how to implement biblical Law, is that Biblical law does not seem to be "law" in a modern sense. It's fine to say that we should implement "Jubilee laws", for example. But, there is no way to do that in a naive line-for-line transference of the concept, to a modern context (obviously!) - and Reconstructionists know that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that a number of the laws (and yes they are laws) are unlikely to be considered palatable. Do you see even the most radical reconstructionist suggesting a return to the sacrifice of various animals, to the stoning of people for violating the 5th, 7th or 10th commandments, or that every person shall write a scroll of the Torah (or Bible) for himself? •Jim62sch• 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot one that would go over really well in a capitalist society (hey Dominionist or not, ya gotta have cash): To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor. •Jim62sch•

The lead sentence is too strong. So I suggest using "tendency" over "trend." Furthermore, the sentence should not read as being true per se. I think "a perceived tendency" comes close, but not close enough. --LC 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "perceived tendency" is POV. Dominionism is what it is. The question is whether (and to what extent) dominionism is real. Calling it a "perceived tendency" is to say up front that "this is nothing but a fantasy" which is, of course, something we can't do. Guettarda 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda is correct, "perceived" is highly charged and POV. •Jim62sch• 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "supposed tendency" is actually closer to what I had in mind. In this way, we do not cater to either side in the lead sentence. --LC 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to think of vagueness as the only threat to the article. Both, "perceived trend" and "tendency" imply something ethereal. Is the "tendency", "to seek influence" (who would this not describe, then?)? Or, is the controversial "tendency", that these groups seek influence "primarily through political means" (where "primarily" is another ethereal or at least ambiguous term)? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Supposed is worse than perceived. •Jim62sch• 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

lead nearing perfection

The opening sentence is approaching perfection. There remains a central issue of neutrality, however. It is not controversial to say that all of the groups so described are "a [Christian] movement to gain influence or control". However, the allegation is contestable, that the immediate object of their ambition for control is "secular, civil government" or that the vehicle of their ambition is "political action". — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

The sticky problem is that, it is only insofar as politics is the object and vehicle, that these movements are called "Dominionism". The neutrality issue involved here is highlighted by the fact that both, Reconstructionists and "post-Reconstructionists" deny that politics is the suitable vehicle or that political reform is their immediate aim (and furthermore, both are professedly anti-nationalistic) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors then do not have a choice, if they are constrained by the rules of Wikipedia. They must accept that Reconstructionism is mis-defined or misappropriated, if it is interpreted or implemented as political action in the service of cultural change ("progress"). According to its own self-definition, Reconstructionism is inherently conservative (not progressive) in terms of political action: the progress it envisions cannot be implemented by political means.

If editors brush this off, then they are forced to describe Reconstructionism as a covert and deceptive program. The rules of Wikipedia prevent stating or implying that this determination is a statement of fact - we may only report that this is what opponents say.

The article would be improved if Reconstructionism were more clearly and succinctly defined. One way that this could be done is to test the verifiability of these theological critiques:

• Christian Reconstructionism is the practical program which follows consequent to the equation/extension of the dominion mandate with/through the Great Commission
• Christian Reconstructionism follows as a consequent program, from the generalization of the Regulative principle of worship into spheres of action outside of the visible church
• Dominionism is the appropriation for progressive political purposes, of the Christian radical-motive as this applies to sanctification and self-control

These definitions would be meaningless to a nontheistic approach to the controversy, but a Trinitarian theistic approach should be able to discover whether these are valid (supportable and verifiable), and from there should be able to discover the appropriate analogies in criticisms that arise from non-Trinitarian perspectives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the meaning of conservative is not what it once was: maintaining the status quo. Given that, there is no reason conservatism cannot be progressive in the sense that it seeks to change the status quo and return to a time that is perceived to have been better (whether such a time actually existed is unimportant). Of course, one could just as easily argue that this is regressive, but that is merely a definitional quibble. Ultimately, anything that seeks to change the current system is progressive, if not by standard definitions then certainly by effect. •Jim62sch• 22:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Reconstructionism is a special kind of case - because it is so "genuinely radical" as the article says. There are cases of people who at least credit Reconstructionism as their inspiration for disregarding any "ordinance of man" that does not have explicit sanction by the written law of God. This stance, if it actually rises out of Reconstructionism, is not only radical but revolutionary. You might remember Paul Jennings Hill - to our shame, a former minister - who rationalized his execution of the abortionist, John Bayard Britton, based on just such a revolutionary interpretation of Reconstructionism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the man's logic was really twisted, and I know he caused grief for many fudamentalists who were unfairly tarred because of his actions. I really get irritated by cass of religious zeal run amok -- I've known many pious people, who have a legitimate zeal for their religion, but they most would never hurt a fly; and yet the loonies who go overboard get the most press (gotta sell papers) and cause damage that takes time to heal. •Jim62sch• 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics... I rest my case

I did a google search for "Critics of Dominionism", and what did I find? The Dominionism Template... which lists "Critics" of Dominionism. This was obviously not the work of Dominionists seeking to smear these folks, so I hope this settles the question of whether this term is inherently biased... since the critics seem quite comfortable with it themselves. Frjohnwhiteford 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a QED, eh? •Jim62sch• 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, ther's this: [2] and this [3]. •Jim62sch• 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also did a google search of the English Wikipedia, to see how often the phrase "critics of" is used:

site:en.wikipedia.org +critics.of Brings up 6,080 hits, and so I think we can safely say that this is a phrase that "has wide acceptance among editors" and does not violate the NPOV policy. Frjohnwhiteford 10:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes John, just like your nonsense above - the term "critics" is used, and used correcly. Yes, people have opinions. But all of this is utterly irrelevant. As you well recall, the only point was whether "sociologists" + "journalists" + "critics" was an adequate delineation of the group of people who characterise dominionism in this way. The fact that some proportion of the sample space is occupied by "critics" is irrelevant - the question is whether the group of people can be adequately rounded off by "critics" and nothing else. As before, please provide something to support your assertion that the best characterisation of all (or even the vast majority) the non-sociologists and non-journalists who characterise this movement as "dominionism" are best characterised as "critics". Do you have anything to support your assertion? Please? Not your ramblings about relativism, not your attempt to use Wikipedia as a source...something we can use.

Or is your only goal here to insult people and be disruptive? Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Disruption and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Guettarda 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Dominionism Template evidently assumes that "Critic" is the best term to describe that group, and I note that you have edited that template since this label was added, and so has Chip who is listed as one of the critics, and apparently you did not find the lable imbalanced or objectionable, or you would have changed it. Can you give me a list of some figures who are not journalists or sociologist who are not critics who use the term "dominionism" as a lable for the groups we are talking about? I don't think any of the advocates (alleged or real) use that term to refer to themselves, but perhpas you can cite some examples.

a quick look at google would indicate that it is the critics who use this term, though there may be some exceptions I have not run across. See: Google: +Dominionism -wikipedia -wiki

As for tendentious editing. That policy refers to edits to articles, and I don't believe I have even touched this article in more than a week. Frjohnwhiteford 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of please provide something to support your assertion do you find so difficult? Do you not understand sourcing, or are you simply making irrelevant arguments for the fun of being disruptive? Guettarda 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Google search is evidence. I looked through it. Every use of Dominionism is found in articles critical of those given the label. I asked you to cite anyone who used the label who was not a critic, sociologist, or journalist, and you haven't.

And just so we remember why we are having this discussion, this is the use of the word "critics" you objected to on the basis of the NPOV policy:

"Dominionism is a trend among socially conservative Christians, described by sociologists, journalists and critics as being part of a movement to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action; meaning, these activists seek either a nation dominated by Christians, or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of Biblical law."

The statement as it originally stood, before your edit to change "critics" into "others" was completely accurate, and easily provable by reference to the numerous critics who use the term in precisely that way. Frjohnwhiteford 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it's for the fun of it.

Ioannes, ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat; proba! •Jim62sch• 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The Google search is evidence" - stop being ridiculous, John. Are you really that contemptuous of your fellow editors that you have simply refused to read applicable policies? Please see WP:NOR and WP:RS.
• "I looked through it" - again, have you never read any of our key policies? Have you ignored every single attempt by people to explain policy to you? Please see WP:NOR.
• "Every use of Dominionism is found in articles critical [sic] of those given the label" - again...please see WP:NOR.
• "I asked you to cite anyone who used the label who was not a critic, sociologist, or journalist, and you haven't" - aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Read our policies. Guettarda 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, this is a discussion page, not an article. I would not reference a statement in the article itself to a footnote that says "As you can see from the following Google Search..." However, these Google searches do point you to countless articles that could be referenced. And there is no doubt from looking at these countless citable articles that critics of dominionims do use that term in the way the article lays out. You, on the other hand are making the assertion that some additional group of people, not encompassed by the labels "Sociologists", "Journalists", or "Critics", also use the term in that way, and that to speak of critics who use it this way violates the NPOV policy (when countless articles on Wikipedia ensure that the NPOV policy is followed precisely by laying out the positions of both advocates, and critcis of a position). This is your assertion. Where is your proof for that assertion? Please cite one, or maybe even two examples of people who are not sociologists, not journalists, and not critics of Dominionism, who use the term in the way you assert they do. Otherwise please refrain from questioning my motives here. Frjohnwhiteford 01:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

John, this is a discussion page for discussing the article. There's nothing to discuss other than the article here. This has been pointed out to you before. We aren't discussing this for the fun of it - we are discussing article content. You said "You, on the other hand are making the assertion that some additional group of people, not encompassed by the labels "Sociologists", "Journalists", or "Critics" and "This is your assertion". Please stop making up nonsense. I never made any such assertion - I removed the "critics" assertion from the article, you have said it belongs there. As I have said, over and over, support your assertion with a reference.

John said: "Please cite one, or maybe even two examples of people who are not sociologists, not journalists, and not critics of Dominionism, who use the term in the way you assert they do". I don't know if you still have not read the policies, if you have read them and are unable to understand them, or if you have read them and simply choose to ignore them. Which one is it? Guettarda 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The "critics assertion" has been documented... there is more than sufficient evidence that critics use the term in the way the article said they did. You made two assertions: 1) that this documentable fact was a violation of the NPOV policy...which is clearly false, as 6,080 articles on wikipedia which use the term in the same way demonstrate, 2) that there were "others" who were not critics, sociologists, or journalists that used the term this way... and yet you have not offerred any proof that this is so. In fact, if you wanted to be as strict with yourself about the no original research policy as you wish to be with others, you should have cited a source that stated who used the term dominionism in this way rather than made any extrapolations based on multiple sources that was not clearly stated in any one of them. Also, another policy you might want to review is WP:NPA. Frjohnwhiteford 10:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FrJohn, should you be pressing this point, since the "sociologists" + "journalists" + "critics" language is no longer being used in the present version of the article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have not worked our way through much of the article, and I think skirting the issue of who's who when it comes to the subject only serves to obscure the facts. It seems to me that the desire to avoid the use of the word "critic" is motivated by a desire to present the label as having a far broader use then it actually does. We can table the discussion for the time being, I suppose, but I suspect we will be covering this again. Frjohnwhiteford 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not skirting the issue when the other editors disagree with you. Please move on, and focus on editing actual text.--Cberlet 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hatch, Noll, and nostalgia

I removed

Religious historians, like Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll and others, also suggest that modern fundamentalists are nostalgic for a time that never really existed as they imagine it: a time in the indefinite past, before the turbulent sixties, when wholesomeness, and sanity, and harmony prevailed under a benevolent religion much as they conceive their own to be.

which had been uncited for a while. I looked through the books by Hatch and by Noll that I could search on Amazon and did not find this. Could someone find the specific book this is in? The same passage is in Christian Supremacy, where I added a citation request. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that you'll eventually find the gist of the statement to be supportable; but you're right to remove it at least until a source is found, to that effect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-dominionist Dominionism

I'm removing the clarification of the views of others who do not hold the described view, as it can only possibly be vague and incomplete in its attempt to explain what all other Christians think dominion means. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See also/Template

The see-also list is getting rather long. I just wrote a template which I would like to insert, to allow us to gain a clear oversight. It's Template:Relpolnav (Religious Politics Navbar). Take a peek, comment there. samwaltz 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia on Wikipedia and dominionism

See the current front page www.conservapedia.com on 5 July 2007, and item 4 on their little list of things against Wikipedia. Comments? Jackiespeel 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link to get directly there. I of course agree with the criticism. I think wikipedia's method of editing works fairly well when you are dealing with non-controversial issues, but when you have issue where people have axes to grind the system breaks down, and what you get is the tyranny of the majority (the majority in this case being defined by the majority of those who have the time, energy, and willingness to engage in what is often a quite nasty battle over the particulars of an article), regardless of the actual facts. Frjohnwhiteford 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia tells us that dominionism is a conspiracy theory invented by liberals with no factual basis. Wikipedia, what's your response? --Jonathan Drain 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No response is necessary. Conservapedia is explicitly and admittedly a biased, partisan source. They have no more credibility here than these folks. --FOo 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW - can someone archive part of this page. (Easier to find replies to comments.) Jackiespeel 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New Revisions

Wow. I am quite surprised that User:FeloniousMonk has seen fit to do a wholesale revert of the work I did on this article several days ago. Here is the article as I left it, with the changes highlighted. I stand by it. FM's stated reason is, "rv back to last neutral version, way too many non neutral, unsourced statements, make your case on talk first for significant changes". Firstly, I think the burden is upon him to justify his reversion of a good-faith edit. My purpose was to make the article more neutral than it was, not less, so specific criticisms on that point are needed. I also did a bit of moving text around to increase readability and clarity; below the "Dominion" section (where I stopped editing), it is still rather a jumble IMO. Finally, I actually added several sources to the article, so I see no justification for criticism on that point; my added text actually has more sources-per-kilobyte than the article as I found it.

I invite FM to improve upon my (restored) edits, just as I have (I believe) improved upon his and others'. Nobody owns this article, and I hardly need to ask permission before editing it. --BlueMoonlet 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The way the article was edited with dozens of edits without any discussion was hardly collaborative. The outcome reflects a highly idiosyncratic and OR frame on the issue of Dominionism. The Origin section lead is simply invented and without citation and false. The entire page has been re-arranged to promote a specific POV. The influence of my writing as Chip Berlet has been inflated in a way that is just plain silly (and without cites). These are just a few comments. On controversial pages it is customary to have a discussion before making drastic changes. Some of the changes were positive. Others are debatable. You do not need permission to edit, but better manners would be nice.--Cberlet 03:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Berlet. I am sorry that you find my manners questionable; I do not wish for that to be the case. I was frankly surprised that my batch of edits on Thursday night was met with no response, so I made some more early Friday morning, and then some more later in the day. My intent was always to provoke discussion which would lead to consensus. I am sorry if you found this offensive.

There are three main claims in the first paragraph of the Origin section: 1) The term "dominionism" is a reference to the older term "Dominion theology"; 2) The modern form of DT results from Rushdoony; 3) Most mainstream Christians reject DT as radical (not to mention as bad theology). Which are you disputing? I was not aware that any of these were controversial. I also did not think it controversial to say that you are responsible for taking the term "dominionism" out of the few academic studies that had used it and making it popularly known.

I should say a word here on my view of WP:V and WP:REF. Not every single sentence in an article must have a reference (to do so would make editing so cumbersome that much less of it would be done, and furthermore the present article as I found it would hardly conform to such a standard), but references are required for all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Therefore, if you (or FeloniousMonk or anyone else) can honestly look me in the face and say that you think a statement I wrote is not true, then I will accept the need to find a supporting source or remove the statement. In most cases, I would appreciate a {{Fact}} tag rather than outright reversion, at least for a day or two, but I'll leave that decision to you. You'll note that I have done just this in the "Dominion" section.

Looking forward to further discussion, and hoping for consensus. --BlueMoonlet 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Many Wiki editors do not live onscreen, BlueMoonlet. It often takes several days for regular editors to visit pages. Expecting responses faster than a few days or even a week is likely to cause problems. On controversial pages (yes, there should be a tag on top of this talk page) it is better to start a conversation before making major changes. The term "dominionism" was popularized by author Sara Diamond in her popular press columns (although it will be hard to find a cite for that other than my writing as Chip Berlet). The term comes from the verse in the Bible, not from Dominion Theology. The claim that "Most mainstream Christians reject DT as radical" really needs a cite. (Martin, for example). Your edits reflect WP:OR and WP:POV involving an idiosyncratic interpretation of the relationship between the terms and concepts of Dominionism and Dominion Theology. You make assumptions about what various authors "really" mean. Not your call. Place quotes in larger contexts if you challenge the existing text and its interpretation. That means reading the quotes in their original place of publication. Finally, it is customary to use User Names here on Wikipedia, even for those of us who publish under other names.--Cberlet 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If citations to Diamond are hard to find other than in your own work, then wouldn't it be fair to say that she was not much of a popularizer? I see no evidence of her writing in the popular press, even in her own article. When did the term start to become commonly used, and in response to whose work was that? Most usage of the term that I can find on Google seems to originate with TheocracyWatch. That said, pending your response to these questions, I am not greatly opposed to modifying or removing the parenthetical about yourself.

I find it hard to believe that Dominionism is not a reference to DT -- not only does the one term very effectively echo the other in a reader's mind, but the list of dominionist leaders is very heavy on DT figures -- though I am in the process of obtaining Diamond's original books to see if they will shed any light on the topic. The article itself significantly conflates DT with so-called dominionists who do not subscribe to it; as I noted in -tagging the "Dominion" section, there is no cited evidence that the non-DT figures labeled as "dominionist" would use Genesis 1:28 in a political context.

Please be more specific as to your meaning when you say "Place quotes in larger contexts...", etc.

Adding the Martin ref is a good idea; I've done it, and I will work on getting more documentation on the very wide chasm between DT and mainstream theology. By the way, if it would help defuse the hostility that seems to exist between us at the moment, I think Martin is quite right in pointing out that some leaders of the Religious Right (whom I dislike nearly as much as you do, though from a very different perspective) have cherry-picked some elements of DT that support their own aims. In that they are playing with fire, but still they steer far clear of the totalitarian theocracy advocated by DT and repudiate the theological arguments made for such a societal goal -- on this point the comments of Chalcedon blogger Chris Ortiz ([4], unfortunately you have to scroll down to "Gary North on D. James Kennedy") on Rev. Kennedy's passing are enlightening. I don't blame you for criticizing the Religious Right, but criticism should be proper and should be given a proper name. --BlueMoonlet 16:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism need not be "proper," merely published in a reliable source. The whole idea of NPOV is that there is no "proper" POV, only an attempt to portray a range of POV's, highlighting the most mainstream, while giving notice to more marginal views. --Cberlet 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. I was confusing the issue between your real-life writings and this article. My apologies. --BlueMoonlet 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, names themselves can be POV, and calling things by their proper names should be a cardinal goal of Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be a total waste of time to argue with you over your uncited Original Research claims. I have no intention of doing so. If you cannot provide cites in published materials from reputable sources to the many claims you have inserted into the entry, they should (and will) be deleted. Library research involving actual books, journal articles, and published magazines and newspapers will make you research more reliable and fair. The continued reliance of Google searches and material online will only prolong the waste of time. Much of this material is not online. To have rewritten this entry in such a major way without doing better homework is problematic. --Cberlet 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You've spent a lot of time talking about me, rather than my edits. I still have no idea which of my changes you are objecting to; you gave a few examples, and now refuse to reply to my defense of them. I guess I'll find out if/when you start reverting them, though that doesn't seem very in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS to me. --BlueMoonlet 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I rewrote the article as a compromise between the two versions. I dropped one sentece that was an OR claim regarding a Biblical verse. For the most part, the rest of what I did was to rearrange sentences and paragraphs to follow the actual claims of various critics of Dominionism in print, rather than the uncited and false claim that the term dominionism originated with Dominion Theology. It did not.--Cberlet 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to re-read pages 246-249 of Diamond (1995), which is the only section of that book (please correct me if I am wrong) in which she uses the word "dominionism". There she begins by defining Dominion Theology, then slips back and forth between the two terms in discussing the influence of Rushdoony on the broader Christian Right. There is no doubt from this context that she means "dominionism" to be a broadening of Dominion Theology. My copy of Diamond (1989) should be arriving via inter-library loan in the next couple days. If that book (which, again correct me if I am wrong, coined the term "dominionism") substantiates this reading, then I will reassert the connection.

The problem with your claim that "dominionism" is derived directly from Genesis 1:28 (which, by the way, is clearly the source of the term "Dominion theology") is that you do not substantiate the connection with statements from the non-DT Christian Right. Even in your own chapter of "Unravelling the Right", your claim that Schaeffer, Falwell, LaHaye, and Whitehead "all adhere to the notion that ... man has been given dominion over the earth, and that ... Christians owe it to God to seize the reins of secular society to exercise this dominion" (p.24) is substantiated only by a footnote passing the buck to Barron. I guess I'll have to track that book down next.

Why don't we rename this article, and the infobox template, to "Christian nationalism"? Now "Christian nation" is a term that is commonly used by the people we are talking about, and I should think there would be much less controversy over the applicability of the term. My big problem with "Dominionism" is that it links a radical minority theological view with people who specifically repudiate it. If you got rid of this connection, you would have me substantially off your back. --BlueMoonlet 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You are of course right, but the whole point of the term "dominionism" and the "dominionism" template is to smear mainstream Christian conservatives with the most extreme ideas of a very small minority of a small minority of Christians in America. Obviously, they cannot address such people and their ideas on the actual merits, and so need all the help they can get. Frjohnwhiteford 10:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frjohn. We are having a good-faith conversation here about how to improve this article. If you cannot make constructive comments, please at least refrain from lobbing bombs. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As for your rearrangement of the article, I'm not saying I agree (partly pending resolution of the issue we're discussing), but in any case I won't address it tonight. --BlueMoonlet 04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Diamond quote I just inserted makes it clear how she uses the term "Dominionism." It is neither as a substitute for "Dominion Theology" nor an attempt to smear the Christian Right. Read the whole article she wrote here. I am seeking a compromise between two versions. I have access to over 400 books by and about the Christian Right. Why are you agressively editing an article and making uncited claims when you have not even consulted the books and articles already properly cited on this page? It would be far more constructive if you placed fact notices in the current entry rather than rewriting the page every time you obtain one book. Also, many of us cannot respond in a 24 hour cycle, so a liitle more patience and lag time between your demands would be a sign of good faith. You say: "My big problem with 'Dominionism' is that it links a radical minority theological view with people who specifically repudiate it." I am sure it is annoying that a term you find offensive has become popularized, but this anger has no role in editing this article. The term has appeared in numerous reputable scholarly and mass publications.--Cberlet 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was angry or offended, but I am concerned about terminology inappropriately applied. Yes, it has been used in the media, and is therefore notable; however, it is nearly always used by partisans on one side of the religio-political conflict in this country, and is hardly a consensus term. Therefore, the article should be scrupulous in discussing how the term is used and how it is criticized, but should avoid taking a position on whether its use is appropriate (and I'll note briefly that such nuance is impossible in an infobox). We are a long way from that yet.

The article you cite (which is entitled "Dominion Theology"!) focuses again on Reconstructionist influence on the broader Christian Right. The claim that the term "Dominionism", which is always introduced in close proximity to the older term "Dominion Theology" and which shares 8 of its 11 letters with it, is in fact unrelated to the latter term is, may I say, difficult to swallow.

Diamond's claim that the idea that "Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions" is "prevalent on the Christian Right" is once again unsourced, and I contend it is an exaggeration that has been oft repeated. She does give an example towards the end of DJK using dominion language, but (to her credit) gives the important contextual detail that he was speaking culturally, rather than politically.

It has not been my intention to pressure you in terms of response time. We all have day jobs. Please respond as you are able. --BlueMoonlet 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That your disagree with what Diamond writes, or the use of the term Dominionism in general, is totally without merit in the writing of actual text. She has a PhD. She is published in a reliable source. You state "Diamond's claim that the idea that 'Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions' is 'prevalent on the Christian Right' is once again unsourced." It is not up to you to demand that a scholar who is an internationally recognized expert on a subject has to supply an outside source. It is her opinion as an expert. It is sourced to her. That's how Wikipedia works. If you want to find and cite an alternative view, please find a reputable published source and cite it. Otherwise you are pushing WP:POV and WP:OR. The purpose of a discussion page is to discuss editing text, not whether or not you as a Wikipedia editor agrees or disagrees with a scholarly expert with quotes cited to their writing published in a reputable source.--Cberlet 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have a PhD, but that hardly makes me a font of indisputable knowledge, even in my own field. The current language regarding "prevalent on the Christian Right" rightly cites the statement as Diamond's opinion, rather than as fact. This should be preserved if the quote is edited as User:Tom harrison suggests below. As for opposing viewpoints, some are already in the article (Williams and Kurtz), and I will see about getting more. That is why Dominionism is a "term used by some... to describe a movement," rather than unequivocally "a movement". --BlueMoonlet 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to Diamond: There are a variety of ideological tendencies... we may want to summarize and condense this rather than quoting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tom. Incidentally, a lot of the article needs condensing for purposes of clarity and readability, but I don't intend to tackle that before we come to consensus on what the article should be in the first place. --BlueMoonlet 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening phrase

User:Tom harrison, you just modified the article's opening phrase, "Dominionism is a term used by some social scientists and journalists to describe a movement..." to read instead, "Dominionism is a movement..." This goes to exactly the issue I just mentioned above, that the question of whether this terminology is appropriate applied is hardly a matter of consensus. Your stated reason was that the phrase was redundant with the later phrase, "The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy." I don't see that both phrases can't be in the intro, but if one of them has to go, shouldn't it be the later one? The most important sentence in any article is the lead, whose claim of what the subject "is" will be the only thing that many casual readers ever look at. --BlueMoonlet 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If a reader can't make it from the first sentence to the second, I think that's on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But the point is that saying "Dominionism is a movement..." implies that the terminology is correctly applied, and is thus not a consensus statement. In fact, you said so yourself on this talk page, when you endorsed an even more-qualified lead sentence at 20:44, 1 May 2007 above. How about if we delete the sentence, "The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy," which you say is redundant, and move its footnotes to follow "some social scientists and journalists"? Would you object to that? --BlueMoonlet 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not necessarily object to some reorganization (I'd want to see the result), but I prefer fewer shorter sentences to gigantic strings of clauses and qualifications. If we said "God is the deity Christians worship" that would not be misunderstood as a declaration that there are in fact deities, and it wouldn't prevent us from taking up disagreements about the existence of supernatural beings in due course. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about complex sentences, but any fair lead sentence (beginning with "Dominionism is...") must grapple with two separate complex subjects. The first is that Dominionism is not the proper consensus name of a movement, but a term used by some to describe a movement. I would then suggest something like "Dominionism is a term used by some social scientists and journalists to describe politically-active conservative Christians" or perhaps "...to describe the Christian Right", except I know that Cberlet has insisted above that "political participation by conservative evangelicals is not" ipso facto Dominionism. I'd be interested to see him cite a counter-example, but for now I'll accept that. Thus the lead sentence must also say that the movement described by "dominionism" is "a movement among socially conservative Christians to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action — seeking either a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a Christian understanding of biblical law." I don't see much of a way to condense that. To conclude, while a less complex sentence would be nice, I don't see a fair way to avoid it in this case. --BlueMoonlet 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The tendency or movement has been named, by authors, some of whom are Christians or even evangelicals:

Here is what Barron wrote:

• "As we will see, [Pat] Robertson's explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors what we will call a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism."

Is that not a clear use of the term to demonstrate it is not congruent with or a synonymn for all evangelicals, all conservative evangelicals, or the Christian Right? Dominionism is better described as a tendency among conservative politically-active Christians. The name cannot be shoved back in the box because some people don't like it and some people are sloppy in its use. Please review the lengthy previous discussion above. We have been here before.--Cberlet 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the way you've been pushing me to a high standard, Cberlet. I am going to take some time to do the research necessary to properly reply to your recent arguments, and will come back to this conversation in perhaps a few days. --BlueMoonlet 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I wonder what you would think of this for an opening paragraph, at least for now: "Dominionism is a tendency among conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either for a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy." --BlueMoonlet 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'll run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.--Cberlet 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd salute (and support) that wording.--Alabamaboy 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't work well, unless coupled with "some", as in "Dominionism is a term used by some social scientists and journalists to describe a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action". --profg 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Dominionism is a term used by some social scientists and journalists to describe a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians" is weasely and consists of at least one discernable viewpoint, so not neutral. "Dominionism describes a movement consisting of conservative politically-active Christians..." is accurate, and not weasely. I've fixed it. Odd nature 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that it is not a universally used or accepted term. It is in fact used by a small minority of liberals. It would be similar to having an article on "Neo-Stalinism" and calling a movement among liberals. One can cite many conservatives who use that label in reference to some liberals. One could even cite the open support many liberals have historically given to Stalinist dictatorships to substantiate that. However, it would be grossly unfair to use such a label to tar all liberals... would it not? Frjohnwhiteford 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Frjohn, your "Stalinism" argument would have weight if "Dominionism" were a reference to "Dominion Theology". Cberlet claims that it is not. He also claims that the term is in current use among academic social scientists. I plan to engage these arguments, but please give me some time to prepare a (hopefully) constructive, consensus-building response. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your point? Cberlet distinguishes between Dominion Theology and Dominionism only because Dominion Theology encompasses the real extremists (who are a minority of a minority), but the broader label of Dominionism allows the sinister extremism of Dominion Theology to be associated with groups like Focus on the Family... who are not extreme at all. Focus on the Family is not advocating that a theocratic state be established, or that the Constitution be thrown out, or the execution of gays -- they advocate a view of American Constitutional Law that was assumed by almost everyone in America prior to the 60's. "Dominionism" is a negative term. Even Chip does not claim that it applies to all conservative Christians (just the ones who dare think their Christian Faith should influence our laws through the democratic process, i.e. by having people who share Christian values, voting based on those values). My point is that when you take a term that has negative conotations, "Stalinism" or "Dominionism" and say that it is a "movement" or "a tendency" within a group is unfair to the rest of the group that has nothing to do with the alleged tendency. Also, I appreciate the fact that you are doing research, and hope you will continue. I am simply stating why I think the current opening statement has POV problems. Frjohnwhiteford 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<-------Note to Frjohnwhiteford. This false claim about my beliefs and writings about Christians constitutes a personal attack: "(just the ones who dare think their Christian Faith should influence our laws through the democratic process, i.e. by having people who share Christian values, voting based on those values)" I am a progressive Christian and am active in the democratic political process. I have repeatedly defended conservative Christian who do the same and criticized those on the Left who suggest conservative evangelical political participation is not appropriate (easily documented in my writings as "Chip Berlet" outside Wikipedia. This is not the first time you have made aggressive and disruptive entries on a discussion page concerning me. Please stop it. Furthermore, since you have made a false statement about me, I would think that an apology would be appropriate.--Cberlet 14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will apologize if you can clarify where I have misrepresented your position. I acknowledged that you make a distinction. My characterization of where you draw the line is my honest assessment of your position, given that you have refused to answer my questions about where you draw the line, and refuse to explain how James Dobson or Focus on the Family can fairly be labeled as "Dominionists". They do not advocate a theocratic state. They do not advocate the execution of gays. They do not advocate the overthrow of the Constitution. They do not advocate Christians taking up arms to sieze power. They only advocate that Christians vote their values, and influence our laws through the democratic process. So why are they "dominionists"? When you say that conservative Christians can participate in the political process without being dominionists, is that simply an acknowledgment that they too have the right to vote, or do you believe that they have the right to try to make our laws reflect Christian values if they can persuade their fellow citizens to vote that way? Frjohnwhiteford 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How sad. I thought you might actually respond. Never mind.--Cberlet 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely would be glad to apologize, if you would simply answer my question, but your consistent refusal to do so leads me to conclude that my assessment of your position must be pretty close to a bulls eye. If not -- and I hope I am wrong -- why not just say, "Dobson and Focus on the family are good examples of non-Dominionist conservative Christians who are active in the political process"... or, on the other hand, "Dobson and Focus on the Family truly are Dominionists because they have taken the following Dominionist positions...."? When I first saw you make the qualification between Dominionists and non-Dominionists Conservative Evangelicals who are politically active, I had hopes that even if we might not fully agree, we could work together to make an acceptable article on this subject. But that can't happen if you are not willing to define what you mean by the statements you have made. Frjohnwhiteford 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Even sadder. A shame. What a pity. --Cberlet 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't deny that Frjohn has sometimes been intemperate, but isn't he asking a legitimate question here? Dobson is mentioned only once in the article (and that rather vaguely), yet he is listed in the infobox as a Dominionist "advocate". Some justification would be interesting and helpful. --BlueMoonlet 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's maybe better taken up in Dobson's article, or on the talk page for the template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the infobox talk page, but the answer may be relevant beyond Dobson to Dominionism in general, so it should not be confined to his talk page. --BlueMoonlet 15:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is improper and confrontational to demand that I explain my outside writings or the writings of others here on a Wikipedia talk page. The only thing that matters is whether or not certain claims have been made in reputable published sources. Period. They rest is off-topic and disruptive. If Dobson is mentioned as a domnionist in a reputable published source, then the only rebut is finding a reputable published source that says he is not. The rest is WP:OR and WP:POV. I did not coin the term, nor would it matter if I had done so. Please move on.--Cberlet 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not improper or confrontational to ask you to explain a distinction you have made in this discussion and in your writings, and which you have appealled to in this talk page on more than one occassion. Especially since we are trying to work on an article that references this distinction. Why not just answer the question for the sake of truth, reason, and fairness? Why work so hard, and spend so much time not answering the question? Generally, one has to assume that when people avoid answering a fair question, it is due to the absence of a good answer that does not under cut the arguments of the person refusing to answer the question.Frjohnwhiteford 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is a disruption of the discussion page. Please stop these personal attacks. If they do not stop, I will seek Admin intervention.--Cberlet 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Cberlet has given an answer that he believes sufficient, and that it is all the answer he intends to give. I strongly suggest that we simply note that, and table this line of discussion for now. --BlueMoonlet 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate "weasel words" as much as the next guy or gal. But the fact is, it's only a "tendency" among some, and not applicable to all (or even the majority, unless you have a reliable citation that it is). Thanks. --profg 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the public controvery and the tendency of "some" critics of Dominioinism to lump all evangelicals into that tendency, I think the word "some" is useful and appropriate. :-) --Cberlet 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a big improvement. I agree too. Frjohnwhiteford 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged?

It is just silly to use the phrase "alleged tendency," The term "Dominionism" is used by scholars and journalists. There are numerous cites on the page.--Cberlet 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Four Propositions

I would like to make four propositions that, I believe, should guide the editing of this article (and the infobox). I hope that we can discuss them constructively and come to consensus.

I would ask that no one edit the article based on these points until the discussion has run its course. As Cberlet has pointed out, some of us have day jobs. I have taken several days to prepare these points; he and his supporters should have the benefit of at least a similar period of time. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Dominionism" is derived from "Dominion Theology"

Cberlet has objected to the contention of many (including myself) that "Dominionism" is a term derived from Dominion Theology, a radical branch of theology (most prominently formulated as Christian Reconstructionism) that holds that society should be explicitly controlled by Christians alone and should be ordered explicitly according to the Old Testament laws that governed Biblical Israel (a concept called theonomy). This is an important issue because many people see the usage of this term as a partisan effort to lump mainstream leaders of the Christian Right together with the radical Reconstructionists. Cberlet claims that this is not so, that "Dominionism" is a reference to theological doctrines allegedly held by all to whom the label applies (see below for theological discussion) and not directly related to DT. To test this claim, here is a chronological analysis of the early use of the term:

• Diamond (1989): Although this book is cited in the article as having coined the word "dominionism," to my surprise I am unable to find the word anywhere in it. If no one can cite a specific page number, reference to this book should be removed from the article. This book does discuss Dominion Theology and its influence on the broader Christian Right.
• Barron (1992): Barron's purpose is to thoroughly analyze Dominion Theology, including its influence on the broader Christian Right. In context, the two quotes of his that are currently in the article are clear references to Dominion Theology. Any claim that Barron meant to use "dominionism" with its current definition (i.e., referring directly to Genesis 1:28 and not to DT) is anachronistic; he means "dominionism" simply to mean adherence to DT. On page 13, the section entitled "What Is Dominionism?" begins, "The name 'dominion theology' derives from Genesis..." and proceeds to slip back and forth between the terms "dominionist" and "dominion theology".
• Clarkson (1994): His article in PublicEye[5] is primarily a discussion of Reconstructionism, but does contain perhaps the first legitimate use of the term with its present meaning (it is unclear to me why Diamond, rather than Clarkson, is credited with coining the term). Clarkson refers at one point to "Reconstructionism (sometimes known as dominionism)," clearly demonstrating that the two terms are connected in his usage.
• Diamond (1995a): Diamond's book Roads to Dominion does use the word "dominionism", but only in a brief passage on pages 246-247, which (like Barron) slips back and forth between the terms "dominionism" and "dominion theology" while discussing the influence of Rushdoony on the broader Christian Right.
• Diamond (1995b): Diamond's article in Z Magazine[6] is more explicit in its use of Dominionism as a stand-alone term. However, it is still defined immediately after a mention of Reconstructionism (the article is in fact entitled "Dominion Theology").

I don't think there is any question that the term "Dominionism" is derived from "Dominion Theology," however it may have been subsequently redefined. Given this evidence, I think it is important that the connection between the two terms be made very early in the article. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

False:

The actual origin of the term “Dominionism” within social science related to the concept of “Anthropocentrism,” and tied directly to Genesis:

• "Anthropocentrism was forever validated when Judaism, Islam, and Christianity endorsed its strong form, known as dominionism, or a divine right to rule over nature Some Biblical scholars claim that interpretations of the Hebrew that justify using animals as we please misrepresent the original Hebrew. Alternative interpretations translate the original as "stewardship," a form of anthropocentrism conveying a "God-given responsibility to care for the earth" (Linzey 1998, 287), rather than granting the right to rule over it (see also Cohen 1989)." See Leslie Irvine, "The question of animal selves: Implications for sociological knowledge and practice," Qualitative Sociology Review, Volume III, Issue 1 – April 2007, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.

There are then a series of books and articles that start to discuss the tendency by the Christian Right to push for control of the political process, and which relate this in some way to the influence of the ideas generated by Christian Reconstructionism, a form of Dominion Theology. It takes a few years fo authros to sort this out in a clear way.--Cberlet 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• A more aggressive form of evangelicalism emerged in the 1970s, typified by right–wing evangelical activist Francis A. Schaeffer, founder of the L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland and author of How Should We Then Live?, which challenged Christians to take control of a sinful secular society. Schaeffer (and his son Franky) influenced many of today's Religious Right activists, including Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and John W. Whitehead, who have gone off in several theological and political directions, but all adhere to the notion that the Old Testament Scriptures reveal that man has been given dominion over the earth and the New Testament transfers God's covenant to Christians, then Christians owe it to God to seize the reins of secular society to exercise this dominion.

• The most extreme interpretation of this "dominionism" is a movement called Reconstructionism, led by right–wing Presbyterians who argue that secular law is always secondary to Biblical law. While the Reconstructionists represent only a small minority within Protestant theological circles, they have had significant influence on the Christian Right.

Berlet, Chip. 1998. "Following the Threads." Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, ed. Amy E. Ansell. Boulder, CO: Westview.--Cberlet 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anthropocentrism is a concept relating to environmentalism and animal rights, not politics. You are correct that it is sometimes called "dominionism" in reference to Genesis 1:28, but this is a completely separate usage of the term that is not germane to the current topic.

I disagree. Do you suppose that Sara, Fred, and I (and others inside and outside academia) did not discuss these issues regarding terminology? But I can't cite that here. It is anecdotal and WP:OR. All I can state is that you have no cite to a reputable published source for your claim. So it also is WP:OR.--Cberlet 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Berlet (1998) post-dates all of the references that I cited, and relies upon them. Unless you wish to claim that Berlet (1998) originated usage of the term with its current definition (and I am pretty sure that you do not wish to do so), then the term's historical origins as derived from the term "Dominion Theology" must be presented. --BlueMoonlet 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You will have to find a reputable published source that states the term "dominionism" is derived from "Dominion Theology," otherwise it is Original Research WP:OR.--Cberlet 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research; it's reading the cited sources and describing what they say. Are you saying you will not allow the article to mention any connection between the two terms? --BlueMoonlet 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that, and please have the common courtesy to not put words in my mouth, especially when they would violate Wiki policies. You seem to not understand how the concept of Original Research WP:OR is used here on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this: The first paragraph of the article should describe the various uses of the term and how it has evolved with time. We start with the fairly common use of the word "dominionist" to mean adherance to Dominion Theology and/or Reconstructionism. You can throw in anthropocentrism as well if you like. Then we move on to Clarkson and Diamond (starting in 1995, not 1989) and Berlet, then to Hedges and the explosion into the mainstream (with criticisms of that, such as yours here[7]). No need to assert that one thing is derived from another; just lay out the sequence and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. Do you like this, or at least wish to modify it constructively? --BlueMoonlet 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that is a solution. Diamond in 1995 is talking about Christian Reconstructionism as Dominionist, but also about the broader tendency of "dominionist thinking" on the Christian Right, and she cites Barron, who discusses the same relationship, although both are mostly writing about Christian Reconstructionism. There is still some confusion at this point as to whether or not the term Dominion Theology refers just to Christian Reconstructionism. She also cites the article by Clarkson in the Public Eye.

• The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law."

Fred Clarkson, “Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence,” The Public Eye, March/June 1994. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

On pages 246-247, Diamond is clearly using the term "dominion theology" to refer to the broader movement. See her text where she says Schaeffer's 1981 book is an "earlier source of dominion theology" in the Christian Right, so that this preceeded the influence of Christian Reconstructionism on the Christian Right. Note that the roots of Christian Reconstructionism are in the early 1970s: R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law. Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973. So she is NOT basing her use of "dominionism" on Christian Reconstructionism (Dominion Theology), but on braoder forces and tendencies on the evangelical right.

On page 247 Diamond discusses how the Coalition on Revivial tried to move ideas of dominion into the broader Christian Right: "the idea was to encourage activists to 'take dominion' over secular institutions." COR was seeking a broader constituency than just Christian Reconstructionism.

See also her discussion of "dominionist thinking" in the broader evangelical movement on page 248.--Cberlet 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll allow that Diamond confusingly used the term "dominion theology" when she sometimes meant "dominionism" as you define it; this can be forgiven, as you mention, due to the concept being still in development. Barron, on the other hand, clearly uses "dominionism" simply to mean adherence to Reconstructionism, and sometimes to mean thinking that is influenced by Reconstructionism. But, for the most part, what you write here looks fine to me. Can you clarify why/how you disapprove of my proposal? --BlueMoonlet 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominion Theology is shunned by mainstream Christians

This proposition should be easy to demonstrate, and I am not even sure that Cberlet would dispute it. The quote from Martin (1996, p.354) notes that mainstream Christian Right leaders are "careful to distance themselves from" Reconstructionism, even as some of them cherry-pick certain of its ideas for their own use. Another source is in fact Diamond (1998, p.213), who describes how few and marginalized were Rushdoony's explicit supporters. Also interesting is the recent testimony of Chalcedon blogger Chris Ortiz[8] of the differences and antipathy between Reconstructionists and the likes of the late D. James Kennedy. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

False:

• William Martin is the author of the 1996 tome With God on Our Side, a companion volume to the PBS series. Martin is a sociologist and professor of religion at Rice university, and he has been critical of the way some critics of the Christian Right have tossed around the terms "dominionism" and "theocracy." Martin has offered some careful writing on the subject. According to Martin:

• "It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' "

• According to Martin, "several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books."

• Before he died in 2001, the founder of Christian Reconstuctionism, R. J. Rushdoony, appeared several times on Christian Right televangelist programs such as Pat Robertson's 700 Club and the program hosted by D. James Kennedy, writes Martin.

• "Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language" says Martin, "his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' "

• Martin also points out that

• "Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality . . . in all points of history . . . and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike. . . . It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership James Kennedy is one of them-who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'"

See: Chip Berlet: The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part One --Cberlet 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More:

• "It is, as well, a formidable theology designed to take on all comers. In order to wage a battle for God's dominion over all aspects of society, they needed a comprehensive analysis, game plan, and justification. This is what Reconstructionism provides to a wide range of evangelical and other would-be conservative Christians. New Right activist Howard Phillips believes that Reconstructionism, as expressed by Rushdoony and North, has "provided [evangelical Christian] leaders with the intellectual self confidence" to become politically active, whereas many previously were not. Many conservatives apparently felt that they had no positive program and had been left in the role of reactionaries, just saying no to modernism and liberalism. Reconstructionism offers a platform that encompasses the religious and the political."

Fred Clarkson, “Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence,” The Public Eye, March/June 1994. --Cberlet 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the occasional book endorsement and talkshow appearance by a Reconstructionist should be mentioned, as should Jay Grimstead's efforts to make Reconstructionism more mainstream. And the claim that Reconstructionist ideas have influenced the broader Christian Right is what this article is all about (right?). But the general antipathy between Reconstructionists and mainstream Christians, which is largely theological in origin and which is witnessed by Barron, Martin, Diamond, Ortiz, and others, also needs to be mentioned. --BlueMoonlet 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the stature of William Martin as a professor of religion? Please do not be so dismissive of the biographer of Billy Graham. Check out his bio.--Cberlet 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing Martin at all. His book is great. I cited him in my original point as saying that mainstream Christian Right leaders are "careful to distance themselves from" Reconstructionism. --BlueMoonlet 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet mainstream leaders of the Christian Right use ideas and are influenced by Dominion Theology, so to suggest that "Dominion Theology is shunned by mainstream Christians" is clearly false; and it is also not the same as stating "mainstream Christian Right leaders are 'careful to distance themselves from' Reconstructionism." They could be careful to "distance themsleves" and yet be using ideas from Christian Reconstructionism--hardly shunning in my book.--Cberlet 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we largely agree on this point. The individual people and the theological system are largely shunned by mainstream Christians (with occasional exceptions, and "shun" is perhaps too strong a word), even as some of them cherry-pick certain of its ideas for their own use. References Martin, Diamond, Ortiz. Objections? --BlueMoonlet 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment of our agreement, nor your specific suggestions.--Cberlet 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be enlightened if you could clarify your reasons for disagreement. --BlueMoonlet 04:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have noted before, you continuously make proposals suggesting I say one thing when I say another. By using words like "shun" and "cherry pick" you totally misrepresent what I have written in reputable published sources (see below). It has become tiresome, tendentious, and frankly disruptive. What you propose is nothing more than rewriting your Original Research WP:OR Point of View WP:NPOV formulations while invoking my alleged agreement. I do not agree. Here is my summary: "Christian Reconstruction, a form of Dominion Theology, played a major role in shapting the ideas of the leadership of the Christian Right in the U.S., although these leaders seldom admit it is true. Thus a generic "Dominionism" has become a central tenet within much of the Christian Right, even though few conservative evangelicals support Christian Reconstruction on a theological or political basis."--Cberlet 11:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<--------I have long felt that a helpful way of reaching consensus with another person is to repeat my understanding of their ideas back to them, so that points of disagreement can be isolated and dealt with. Clearly this approach is not working with you, and in fact quite offends you. I am sorry for that, and will try to modify my approach where you are concerned.

My proposal was not a rephrasing of my own opinion, but of the three references I cited. If you think I have misrepresented them, please specify (and please do not focus on the word "shun", which I am ready to concede is too strong; how about "marginalized"?). --BlueMoonlet 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Dominionist" interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is unique to Dominion Theology

The second paragraph of the article currently states the opinion of "Diamond, Berlet, Clarkson, and others" that dominionists are "heeding a command from God to all humankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God," with specific reference to Genesis 1:28. The problem is that this is a theological statement, not a sociological or a journalistic one, and is thus outside the professional expertise of the cited authors. Since reliable sources must be "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", a theological statement of what a particular "dominionist" believes must be backed up with a theologically authoritative source ascribing that belief to that person, or (preferably) by published writings of the person in question. It is quite easy to do this with the acknowledged adherents of Dominion Theology (i.e., Reconstructionism), but I am unaware of any such reference for non-DT "dominionists" like Dobson or Kennedy.

I would like to recommend the article on the "Cultural Mandate" interpretation of Genesis 1:28, which currently is only marginally sourced but which gives a good summary of this theological concept (at least as I understand it). The bottom line is that subscribers to the CM believe that Christianity has something positive to bring to the table in the public square, that Christian principles are good for society, and that Genesis 1:28 implies a mandate to advance such principles in all spheres of life, including pluralistic democratic politics (see, e.g., Kuyper, Schaeffer, Pearcey), but do not assert a God-given right for Christians to rule over society (as does Dominion Theology). When DJK used dominion language, he was speaking (as even Diamond noted[9]) in terms of the Cultural Mandate, rather than in terms of a Reconstructionist understanding. Allegations that a particular person holds a "Dominionist" interpretation of Genesis 1:28 (as currently defined) need to clearly show that the person was not speaking in terms of the Cultural Mandate. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

False:

• In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God." See Sara Diamond Dominion Theology--Cberlet 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• “The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law."” Fred Clarkson, “Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence,” The Public Eye, March/June 1994. --Cberlet 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The DJK quote you mention is the one I was referring to, and Diamond's analysis of it (in her article that you cited) is that he was speaking in terms of the Cultural Mandate. I am inclined to accept Diamond's analysis on this point.

I am aware that Clarkson (among others) has claimed that all people labeled as "dominionists" hold certain theological beliefs about Genesis 1:28. My point is to dispute his reliability as a theological source. His opinion that certain people hold certain theological beliefs may or may not be worth mentioning, but we certainly should not assume that he is correct, without a more authoritative citation. --BlueMoonlet 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, my answer here is not as relevant to the specific Clarkson quote as it could be. As quoted here, Clarkson is simply saying that the broader Christian Right is influenced by Reconstructionism. That is not necessarily a theological statement, and thus (unless I misunderstand) does not really reply to my original point. --BlueMoonlet 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to claim "The "Dominionist" interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is unique to Dominion Theology" you will have to find a cite for this in a reputable published source, or it is WP:OR.--Cberlet 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not make such a broad claim in the article itself. I am saying it here to make the point that any claim of a particular person holding a particular view of Genesis 1:28 is OR unless a theologically reliable source is cited. --BlueMoonlet 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to not understand how the concept of Original Research WP:OR is used here on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's start again:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source." (WP:V) "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (WP:RS) "[T]he Dominionist idea [is]... that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions." (Diamond, 1995b[10])

Therefore, since the test for who is and is not a "dominionist" is theological ("Biblically mandated" can only refer to Genesis 1:28), the burden of proof for labeling non-Reconstructionists (particularly Weyrich, Kennedy, Moore, and Dobson, who are currently listed in the infobox) as "Dominionists" must be citation of a theologically-reliable source that such a person holds the interpretation of Genesis 1:28 that Diamond articulated. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"since the test for who is and is not a "dominionist" is theological." "theologically-reliable source." What nonsense. Please point out the guideline in Wikipedia that supports this idiosyncratic interpretation.--Cberlet 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do sometimes tire of the name-calling and the accusatory tone. But let's keep trying. Here is my argument as a set of simple propositions. Please identify the one(s) with which you disagree.

• "Dominionists" can be identified by how they interpret Genesis 1:28.
• Interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is a theological matter.
• Ascribing a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:28 to a particular person, at least in the absence of specifically theological writings of that person, is the job of a theologian.
• A reliable source for identifying particular people as "dominionists" is either theological writings of that person or a cited reference to a theologian. --BlueMoonlet 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say instead that dominionists are identified by reliable sources calling them such. Those sources might be academics, or researchers, or maybe reporters summarizing others' work. I don't quite see how theologians vs. non-theologians comes into it. Depending what we say ('X is a Dominionist' vs. 'Y describes X's views as dominionist'), surely all we need is a notable/reliable source saying so. If sources differ about someone, or X says he isn't a dominionist, or that his views have been misunderstood, we need to note that. Since we're discussing not only religion, or politics, but both together, it's natural the discussion might get heated. We all try to avoid taking the shortcut of addressing the man instead of his argument, or mistake disagreement for willful obstinacy. Fortunately, there's no deadline. We can discuss, tweak, and discuss some more. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I would like to put to you the question I asked below, which really belongs here in this thread: What makes a sociologist or a journalist a reliable source on what Christians believe, especially when they do not back up their (admittedly published) assertions with evidence of any kind? --BlueMoonlet 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Jossi just below, and: As a general question, it depends what we are saying. If it's "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead", just about any convenient source will do. If it's "Christianity had its origin in Egyptian mystery religions and the story of Jesus was added in the tenth century", that's going to require sourcing better than any random phd, and will involve careful phrasing: 'according to one controversial theory... other scholars...' etc. Then it will expand until it takes up half the article on Christianity and includes three links to the Jesus Seminar, but I digress. More below. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source means only that the source is published by a reputable publisher and that the source is pertinent to the subject. We do no assess the validity of claims made, only that the claims have been made, that the viewpoint expressed in these claims are significant, and that they are verifiable (that the claims have been made, that is, not that the claims are true, or valid). Hope you understand the distinction, which is quite important in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1) What does "the source is pertinent to the subject" mean if not that theological statements should be sourced to someone who knows theology? 2) This whole article (and especially the infobox) is based on a positive assessment of the validity of the claims made (to use your language). When "dominionist" is defined as a person who holds a particular theological belief, and the infobox lists certain people as being "dominionists" (not as being people whom some have called dominionists), then WP is endorsing the POV that the claims are true. --BlueMoonlet 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pertinent, in the context of Wikipedia, means a significant viewpoint. As for your other argument, in Wikipedia we attribute these signoficant viewpoints to those that hold them. We do not say "person Y is a dominionist", rather, we say "Person X describes Person Y as a dominionist". It is all very well explained in WP:ATT, which I invite you to read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying all along. The point is that the infobox says "person Y is a dominionist." Would you then agree that this is against WP policy? --BlueMoonlet 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the text. Problem solved--Cberlet 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<--------For the record, what Cberlet did was change a heading in the Dominionism infobox from "Advocates" to "Reported as Advocates"[11]. I don't know that this change will stand, or indeed that it is really appropriate for an infobox. The infobox actually had a similar form for a significant period of time until it was changed by User:Tom harrison on 22 August 2006[12]. This type of approach was discussed on the infobox talk page (and criticized as WP:WEASEL) here and later here. This will probably spill over into the infobox talk page, though much of the debate turns on the question of what "Dominionism" really is or isn't, which is appropriately discussed here.

Another point is that the "Organizations" heading needs similar treatment, as only American Vision and the Chalcedon Foundation (both legitimately Reconstructionist) qualify as groups to whom the Genesis 1:28 definition of "Dominionism" can reliably be attributed.

In any case, for now, can I get a census of people who would agree with the following statement: The infobox should not claim that a person is actually an advocate of Dominionism without a source specifically attributing to them the theological interpretation of Genesis 1:28 that defines "Dominionism" as described by Berlet and Clarkson and Diamond. Can I get an "amen"? --BlueMoonlet 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your uncited original research POV. It does not matter if you get a host of saints to swear it is true. It is an unsupported allegation. I am sorry that you disagree with reputable published sources. But neither you nor I get to ram uncited original research POV into an entry just because we are unhappy with what has been published.--Cberlet 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with 'reported as'. I'm not keen in general on having things in info boxes that need citation. Greg Bahnsen doesn't contain the word 'dominionism', so I kind of wonder what source says he is an advocate. Infoboxes should let the reader easily find further discussion of the topic, not pigeon-hole people. Other reasonable people see the issues differently. On the point of sourcing, and in more reply to what you asked me above, in some cases all we need are sources saying 'Rushdoony is a dominionist.' I can't see demanding that source be a theologian, a Christian theologian, or a particular kind of Christian theologian. A sociologist or political scientist should be fine. I understand the term has different meanings and imprecise uses, and has been used as political rhetoric. We deal with this by discussing those uses and the controversy around the term. For living people the standards are higher, but the principle is the same. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bahnsen was a Reconstructionist, and Reconstructionists actually embrace the term "Dominionist", with a meaning that goes beyond that of Berlet et al.

As Jossi helped me to clarify, I have no objection to WP reporting any published source calling any person a dominionist, as long as WP reports it as the opinion of that source. My concern is the standard by which WP would endorse that declaration and report it as true (e.g., as the infobox did until yesterday, and may well do again). I would be interested in your response to my bold italic statement above. --BlueMoonlet 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the bolded italic statement above, the demand for "a source specifically attributing to them the theological interpretation of Genesis 1:28 that defines Dominionism as described by Berlet and Clarkson and Diamond" seems unnecessarily restrictive. Sociologists, political scientists, and researchers saying someone is a dominionist is adequate, even if they don't mention Genesis, or use a different definition of Dominionist. Of course, it needs to be presented in context with the different uses of and controversy about the term. Infoboxes cannot present this context, and cannot easily or usefully include citations, so I would rather not have anything in them that is controversial. The headings as they are now are okay with me. I think it would be improved by shortening and simplifying the whole thing, and changing the headings to just 'Ideas', 'People', and 'Critics'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "sociologists, political scientists, and researchers," do you mean to exclude journalists who are not professional scholars? If so, we might be getting somewhere. Remember again that we are talking about WP reporting a statement as true, not reporting an opinion as notable and attributing it to a source. Isn't listing a person under a category in an infobox ipso facto a claim of consensus? If so, shouldn't the standard be at least (if not even more than) a single scholar's opinion? --BlueMoonlet 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"...do you mean to exclude journalists who are not professional scholars?" Not across the board. The decision has to be made in each case, depending on who it is, what they say where, and what statement here it is cited in support of. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred Clarkson and I are paid professional researchers, and I am on the editorial board of a peer review journal, and have written peer review articles and scholarly articles and book chapters. I also co-wrote a book for a scholarly publisher. --Cberlet 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which journal are you on the editorial board of, and which scholarly publisher are you referring to? Frjohnwhiteford 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Google it.--Cberlet 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok... this came up when I Googled it: [13] Your Wikipedia article did not mention you being on the advisory board of a peer reviewed journal. The aforementioned link quotes you as saying you have been published in a peer reviewed sociology journal. Could you just name the Journal in question? Also, it is not difficult to determine who has published your books, I am only asking which publisher you consider to be a scholarly one. Frjohnwhiteford 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frjohn, I do not think this line of conversation is appropriate. Cberlet's professional activities are not relevant to his work as a Wikipedian, and the credentials of his published writings as WP:RS are not in question. --BlueMoonlet 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't I who raised the issue. Chip wrote: "I am on the editorial board of a peer review journal, and have written peer review articles and scholarly articles and book chapters. I also co-wrote a book for a scholarly publisher." I simply asked for specifics. I don't think that is out of line, since he was appealing to these credentials. Frjohnwhiteford 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, Cberlet. And thus your published writings are WP:RS. My question to Tom had to do with the infobox and WP:RS#Claims of consensus. --BlueMoonlet 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

<-------Nobs has been banned from Wikipedia for making vicious personal attacks on me. Citing his attack site is problematic. In fact, the chart that he objected to was later published in a sociology journal:

Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).

Arbcom has warned me to keep my Wiki identity and my professional identity seperate, and to avoid citing my work in an intrusive way. This discussion keeps pushing me in that direction, which is not appropriate. This is my last post trangressing that line. Please stop making demands that force me to cross that line.

All of the following information is easily found online:

I am on the editorial board of the journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. I have done anonymous peer review for the Sociology journal Mobilization! The publisher of Right-Wing Populism in America is Guilford, a scholarly publisher. I just had a chapter published in a book from NYU Press, Confronting the New Conservatism which has a section on the Christian Right.

One peer review article in a sociology journal was:

_______. 2001. “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. A revised and expanded version of the 1999 ASA paper for a peer review journal.

I have written for the review journals for three academic disciplines. One is library science, the others are:

_______. 2004. "Militias in the Frame." Review Essay, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 5, (September), American Sociological Association, pp. 514-521. Review of four books on the Militia movement by Chermak, Crothers, Freilich, and Gallaher.

_______. 2004. Review of: Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement, Kathleen M. Blee, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002) in American Anthropologist, Vol. 106, No. 1, (March), PP. 180-181, American Anthropological Association.

I present papers at scholarly conferences:

Chip Berlet. 2005. "Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium." Paper presented at the conference: Reconsidering "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion": 100 Years After the Forgery, The Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, October 30-31, 2005.

Brenda E. Brasher and Chip Berlet. 2004. "Imagining Satan: Modern Christian Right Print Culture as an Apocalyptic Master Frame. Paper presented at the Conference on Religion and the Culture of Print in America, Center for the History of Print Culture in Modern America, University of Wisconsin–Madison, September 10-11, 2004.

I write for scholarly journals:

Chip Berlet. (2004) Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.

_______. 2004. “Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style: Facing Complex Questions and Challenges.” Journal of Hate Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Institute for Action against Hate, Gonzaga University Law School. Based on the paper prepared for the Conference to Establish the Field of Hate Studies, at the Institute for Action against Hate, Gonzaga University Law School, Spokane, Washington, March 18-20.

I write chapters in scholarly books:

Chip Berlet. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

_______ and Matthew N. Lyons. 2005. “Right-Wing Populism in America.” Chapter in Daniel Egan and Levon Chorbajian, Power: A Critical Reader, Section 9, Social Movements. New York: Prentice Hall.

_______. 2004. “Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements.” In Abby Ferber, ed, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. New York: Routledge.

_______. 2004. “Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theories: A Narrative Form of Demonization and Scapegoating.” In Arturo de Hoyos and S. Brent Morris, eds., Freemasonry in Context: History, Ritual, Controversy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

_______. 2003. “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

_______. 1998. “Following the Threads: A Work in Progress.” In Amy Elizabeth Ansell, ed., Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. New York: Westview.

_______. 1998. “Who’s Mediating the Storm? Right-Wing Alternative Information Networks,” in Culture, Media, and the Religious Right, Linda Kintz and Julia Lesage, eds., pp. 249-273. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Now please stop this harassment, Frjohnwhiteford, and please stop the attempt to trivialize my scholarly work.--Cberlet 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chip, you brought up the issue. You wrote just above "I am on the editorial board of a peer review journal, and have written peer review articles and scholarly articles and book chapters. I also co-wrote a book for a scholarly publisher." I asked you for the specifics. You have provided them. Thank you. In a discussion, when you appeal to evidence or authority other people do get to ask questions about the evidence and authority you appeal to. That is not harrassment, that is dialogue... which is a two way communicationation, as opposed to a monologue, in which someone get's to say whatever they wish unchallenged and without question. Frjohnwhiteford 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought my earlier reproof of Frjohn had been sufficient, but the bibliography is interesting. --BlueMoonlet 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we were typing at the same time - there was an edit confict. I already had written it. :-) --Cberlet 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Dominionism" is a partisan term, not an academic one

As Cberlet has noted, reliable sources need not be peer-reviewed. However, names themselves can be biased, and the usefulness of "Dominionism" as a fair-minded description of certain people or organizations (especially those who reject the label) can be called into question if it is used only or primarily in partisan sources, without having broad currency in scholarly ones.

Diamond did not use the term "dominionism" in her dissertation or in either of her peer-reviewed papers, though she did use it briefly in one of her books (not peer-reviewed) and more extensively in the partisan press. Berlet used the term briefly in a book chapter in 1998, and more extensively in his 2000 book. There has been no cited evidence of the term being used at any other time in a social science context. I found six reviews of Diamond's books in professional journals, and two reviews of Berlet's book (references provided upon request), but none of them found the use of the term "dominionism" notable enough for comment. All other uses of the term are confined to the partisan press (PublicEye, Z Magazine, TheocracyWatch, Harper's), at least until Chris Hedges' 2005 article in Harper's brought the term to the attention of the mainstream media.

In conclusion, no evidence has been cited that "dominionism" has gained currency among social scientists as a term useful to scholars. It is notable due to its limited use since the 1990s, which broadened and was noticed by the mainstream media since 2005, but Wikipedia should avoid assuming that the terminology is appropriately applied. --BlueMoonlet 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, thanks for taking the time to do this research and checking. I will continue to monitor this discussion and provide input when I am able. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have said. I never claimed that reliable sources need to be peer reviewed. This is both an outright fiction and a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. Please refrain from further misrepresntations and false claims. --Cberlet 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said: "As Cberlet has noted, reliable sources need not be peer-reviewed." Emphasis added. I'm going to bed now, so the floor is yours until tomorrow. --BlueMoonlet 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You start out saying I said one thing, and by the end you have twisted it around to imply I mean another. You say "In conclusion, no evidence has been cited that "dominionism" has gained currency among social scientists as a term useful to scholars." This is false. There are a number of social scientists who have used the term "Dominionism," such as Sara Diamond -- just not in peer-review journals you can find. They find the term useful. By the end you are claiming that unless a text by a scholar is peer reviewed it should be considered suspect as potentially partisan -- and by the end you are using the mention of my views at the beginning to imply support for a claim and contention that I explicitly oppose. It is a false, misleading, and unfair argument. And yes, I have every reason to be upset by this.--Cberlet 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather "twisted" way of reading BlueMoonlet comments. She has obviously done a lot more research into the facts and references than anyone else has that has been recently involved in this discussion. How about addressing the substance of her points rather than taking issue with something that she did not say? You may be upset, but you will have to present the "reasons" with reasoned arguments. Frjohnwhiteford 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am male, by the way.  :) --BlueMoonlet 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that.  :) Frjohnwhiteford 12:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  :) --BlueMoonlet 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I started out by conceding a point you had made, then went on to outline a point where we disagree. I don't believe I attributed anything to you falsely; surely I did not intend to.

I do not mean to say that "unless a text by a scholar is peer reviewed it should be considered suspect". I am specifically addressing an argument you've made that the term is scholarly, and not simply used by partisan journalists. If it is the latter, then its use should be described but its appropriateness should not be assumed.

You say "there are a number of social scientists who have used the term," but you can only cite one sociologist who used it in one brief passage in one semi-scholarly book 12 years ago. Two if you count yourself. That hardly qualifies as broad use in the scholarly community. And it is not my job to track down more scholarly uses of the term; it is yours, as you are the one arguing that it is a scholarly term. --BlueMoonlet 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick look through JSTOR and Goodle Scholar show it is used in academic literature. Exactly how it is used, and how has sometimes been grabbed and misused, is something we could expand on a bit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken with Google Scholar, Tom. Not every source that appears in a Google Scholar search is in fact a non-partisan academic source, and not every mention of "dominionism" is germane to the current topic (the environmentalist meaning is common, as mentioned above, as are assorted other meanings I could mention). The bottom line is that individual references need to be cited and examined. --BlueMoonlet 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual references need to be cited and examined. - In support of what statement do they need to be cited? (It looks like the environmental sense is related, certainly historically. We might want to take that up in term and controversy.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant cited as examples of scholarly use of the term, and then examined to see if they are so. If scholarly use of the term under the present definition is limited to the references already cited, and the term is thus used almost exclusively in the partisan press, then I would argue the whole tone of the article needs to change from describing "dominionism" as the proper name for a movement that actually exists, to describing how the term is used by certain people. --BlueMoonlet 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose all four propositions. They twist reliable sources to support a viewpoint that the sources never intended, and a present a depiction of facts that stand in contrast to other facts. No way this is going pass muster. Odd nature 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Chip has made his case pretty well. I'm with OddNature on this. Guettarda 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears people are giving a thumbs-up/thumbs-down here, I am in favor of more detailed analysis as suggested by BlueMoonlet. That doesn't mean his changes will be accepted, just that we'll look more closely at the sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, Amy Elizabeth Ansell; Westview Press, 1998
• New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America, Derek H. Davis, Barry Hankins; Baylor University Press, 2003
• Theonomy in Christian Ethics, G.L. Bahnsen
• Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn’t, Gary DeMar
• The Creed of Christian Reconstruction, Rev. Andrew Saldlin
• The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, David Chilton, Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, TX (1984)
• "Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, J. Ligon Duncan, III, , Premise, Vol II, No. 5, (May 1995)
• The Institutes of Biblical Law", R.J. Rushdoony, Craig Press, Nutley, NJ (1973)
• The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, James Rudin
• The End of Faith; Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2004

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. This is a fine list of references, which I presume you compiled because all of them contain the word "dominionism", though they use it in very different ways. Ansell's book contains the chapter I have referred to above as Berlet (1998). Your next 7 references all use "dominionism" in a theological sense to refer directly to Christian Reconstructionism (which is not the usage we are discussing); Davis and Hankins' book appears to be a scholarly treatment of minority religious movements including Reconstructionism, Duncan is a conservative Presbyterian critic who attacks Reconstructionism on theological grounds, and the rest are all Reconstructionists themselves. Finally, Rudin and Harris are anti-Christian polemicists, neither scholarly nor non-partisan. --BlueMoonlet 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Christian Reconstructionism unrelated? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

From that article: Although relatively insignificant in terms of the number of self-described adherents, Christian Reconstructionism has played a role in promoting the trend toward explicitly Christian politics in the larger U.S. Christian Right.[2] This is the wider trend which some critics refer to, generally, as Dominionism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment, but Cberlet (who I hope will correct me if I am wrong) holds that the term "Dominionism" as discussed in this article refers to the beliefs of certain mainstream Christians, and is not directly derived from the use of the term in relation to Reconstructionism. --BlueMoonlet 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet's opinion can be described and attributed to him, but this article needs to refer to the term as described in these and other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. --BlueMoonlet 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what I have written in reputable published sources is not properly summarized by the above text by BlueMoonlet. This is very frustrating. I think I have been quite clear. I have decribed Dominion Therology, especially in the form of Christian Reconstructionism, as the most militant form of the more generic tendency called "Dominionism," a major factor in the poli9tical activism of the Christian Right. And I describe all forms of Domnionism, including Christian Reconstructionism, as influenced by a certain understanding of the text from Genesis. I have no interest in explaining this again, and I would really, really appreciate it if BlueMoonlet would stop telling me what I think, and what I have written. Quote it. Cite it. Get over it. I agree with what User:Jossi posted above and below.--Cberlet 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"...the uncited and false claim that the term dominionism originated with Dominion Theology. It did not." (Cberlet 02:58, 9/12) --BlueMoonlet 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this line of the conversation is becoming unfocused. At least partly my fault. Let's direct it back up to here --BlueMoonlet 01:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Dominionism did not originate with Dominion Theology. The term originated in a debate that goes back many decades as to the proper translation of certain passages in Genesis. Should the translation be "Dominion" or "Stewardship." It apparently first appears in social science in discussions of the environment and theology. I do not believe the term Dominionism originated with Dominion Theology. It began to be used by authors such as Diamond, Clarkson, me, and many others to describe a tendency toward a specific form of conservative Christian nationalism in the U.S., which includes, but is broader than Christian Reconstructionism. Is this clear yet? If not, what is not clear? This continuous challenge to and misrepresentation of what I have written outside of Wikipedia is becoming tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet 01:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I believe that that is the origin of the term as you have used it in print. The next question becomes: Has anyone other than you and Clarkson and Diamond ever used the term with that definition? Please don't interpret this as confrontational (as you seem quite inclined to interpret everything I say); I am genuinely interested in your answer. --BlueMoonlet 02:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<--------Here is what I wrote in 1998:

• A more aggressive form of evangelicalism emerged in the 1970s, typified by right–wing evangelical activist Francis A. Schaeffer, founder of the L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland and author of How Should We Then Live?, which challenged Christians to take control of a sinful secular society. Schaeffer (and his son Franky) influenced many of today's Religious Right activists, including Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and John W. Whitehead, who have gone off in several theological and political directions, but all adhere to the notion that the Old Testament Scriptures reveal that man has been given dominion over the earth and the New Testament transfers God's covenant to Christians, then Christians owe it to God to seize the reins of secular society to exercise this dominion.

• The most extreme interpretation of this "dominionism" is a movement called Reconstructionism, led by right–wing Presbyterians who argue that secular law is always secondary to Biblical law. While the Reconstructionists represent only a small minority within Protestant theological circles, they have had significant influence on the Christian Right.

Berlet, Chip. 1998. "Following the Threads." Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, ed. Amy E. Ansell. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Since then a number of other authors, both journalistic and scholarly, have used the terms "dominionism" and dominion theology, and Christian Reconstructionism this way. I am not at the library where I work, so I can't provide a list right now. There is also no doubt that some authors have mixed up the terms and the tendencies and the movements into a real mess in which important distinctions are lost. One reason the first conference on Dominionism in New York was held was to hear a variety of interpretations and definitions from both scholars and activists.--Cberlet 02:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the second quote. The first one is a prime example of the theological point I'm trying to make above. You make a sweeping theological claim that "dominionists" believe that the "Scriptures reveal that man has been given dominion over the earth and... Christians owe it to God to seize the reins of secular society to exercise this dominion." In all my years of being among conservative Christians of many different traditions, I have never heard a person say that. Yes, that's OR, but it is my core reason for disputing the statement. I have already cited the much less radical belief of mainstream Christians such as Schaeffer on the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28, but of course your claim is difficult to conclusively refute (this would require proving a negative statement). Is it not legitimate to ask the basis for the claim? The only cited reference is Barron, who says no such thing about non-Reconstructionists (please correct me). Is it not legitimate to ask what makes Berlet (the author, not the Wikipedian) a reliable source on what Christians believe, especially when he has not backed up his claim with evidence of any kind?

I do look forward to that list, but as User:Tom harrison noted, we are not in a hurry around here.

Which scholars spoke at the New York conference? To me the roster looks like you and Clarkson and a bunch of left-wing journalists. --BlueMoonlet 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong conference. I meant the previous conference, the first conference, which included Rev. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches; Joseph C. Hough, President of Union Theological Seminary; the well-known religion writer Karen Armstrong; Professor Charles Strozier; Professor Hugh Urban; and Joan Bokaer of Theocracy Watch. At this first conference we essentially had a debate about what was happening and what terminology to use. There were a variety of perspectives. The title used was "Religious Far Right," but the speakers suggested "Theocracy," "Christian Nationalism," "Dominionism," and other terms. It was this conference that put the term "Dominiomism" into a more public frame, and which resulted in the second conference, a smaller study conference, to expand upon the idea of "Dominionism."--Cberlet 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Which of the speakers supported your definition of "dominionism"? Were there any published proceedings of this conference? Have any of the speakers (particularly Hough, Edgar, or Urban) used "dominionism", under your definition, elsewhere? --BlueMoonlet 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place where you do your research by asking me questions. Read the guidelines, find text, write text in the entry cited to a reputable published source. I have already answered far too many questions that fall outside of what is appropriate for a discussion page. --Cberlet 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making a claim (that "Dominionism" is a scholarly term), not me. I am not asking you to do my research for me; I am prompting you to supply research that would be necessary to support your additions to the article. --BlueMoonlet 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one other than you and your two colleagues uses the term "Dominionism" with the definition you have proposed, then one could argue that the article's assumption that that definition is correct is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --BlueMoonlet 05:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Find a cite to a reputable published source that makes that claim, and feel free to insert it. Otherwise, please stop pestering me.--Cberlet 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the one making the claim of consensus, and therefore it is you who should supply a reliable source (cf. WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus). --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the lead. Read the cites. Note that the lead reflects the cites. If you can find another cited text from a reputable published source that defines "Dominionism" differently, by all means bring it to the table. I am sorry some folks do not like the term and its current use among journalists and scholars. I have never claimed a consensus, I have pointed out that without cited material, all these complaints have nothing to do with editing text using basic Wiki guidelines. Read the lead again. I think it is a fair, accurate, and NPOV description of the term, its definitions (note plural because there are two in the lead), and the fact that there is a mention of a controversy.--Cberlet 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Cberlet here. The lead also includes the known fact that its use is disputed. What would be useful, perhaps, is to attribute the term to these that hold it, something along the lines of:

Dominionism is described by contemporary scholars and journalists as a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a Christian understanding of biblical law [add here some inline citations] . The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy.[1][2][3][4][5]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is fine as it stands (and as improved by Jossi). As a small quibble, I would move the word "some" to modify "contemporary scholars and journalists" -- many scholars favor other terminology, and "tendency among... Christians" does a good enough job of implying "some". My main point was that we need to be very scrupulous about always ascribing any particular definition of "dominionism" to a particular source, and never assuming that any one definition is the "correct" one. I don't know that I've seen anyone disagree with that. The article is fairly good about that, though it could maybe improve in some places, and the infobox is better than it was. --BlueMoonlet 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

This has been a profitable discussion in many ways. I know that my views have been corrected and clarified on many points. I hope to work on a revised version of the article, taking into account the many good points and useful views expressed above, though I will be occupied with other responsibilities over the next few weeks. If/when I come out with a new version, I will post it here for comment before editing the mainspace. --BlueMoonlet 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

A POV tag is not a "I disagree" declaration. A POV tag can be placed in an article, if it is followed by an explanation of why the editor placing the tag thinks it is, so that interested editors can respond to concerns and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We have been over this issue several times in the past, and the fact is that the neutrality of this article as it currently stands is still disputed. We have made some progress, but we have a long ways to go. Frjohnwhiteford 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please present which areas of the article fail NPOV. If there is a specific section, you can tag it with {{sectNPOV}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not egregiously biased, but it is rather muddled. With at least three distinct definitions of the term in common use today, issues that don't belong together are easily conflated, and the article could do a better job of separating the issues and discussing them clearly. The article could also do a better job of not assuming that any one definition is "correct." I hope to address this constructively; whether the article is tagged in the meantime is not an issue of great importance to me (though I would vote yes). --BlueMoonlet 00:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would vote YES also. Can we get consensus here? --profg 02:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with BlueMoonlet. --Flex (talk/contribs) 04:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Four-to-one (or two, if you count Odd nature, who seems to prefer to "talk" in edit summaries rather than on the actual Talk page). That looks like consensus... --profg 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ≈ jossi ≈. Lots of complaints, little actual meaningful discussion that results in text changes. Sound and fury... --Cberlet 13:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of unanswered criticisms of the current article. Change to the text has been slow, but that is because the alternative would be revert war, like we are on the verge of having over the NPOV tag. Frjohnwhiteford 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience with Wikipedia, articles about which there are strong and competing POVs can develop into excellent articles by virtue of the tension between these POVs. That, of course, if editors respect each other and engage civilly and in good faith. Yes, it requires patience and perseverance but it is possible if it can be seen that progress is made as in the last round of discussions about the lead. For the record, note that I do not have a specific POV on the subject, so if there is anything I can do to assist editors in moving forward, I will be delighted to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still looks like we have consensus here to keep the tag. --profg 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag is inconsequential (and will be removed within a reasonable period of time) unless editors that claim lack of neutrality present arguments to specific aspects of the article that need improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of objections have been voiced that have still not been addressed. For example, the whole concept of "Generic" or "Soft" Dominionism is not sourced. As things currently stand, we have the following assertion:

1. "Within the various Christian Right social and political movements, there are those that claim that "America is a Christian nation." In her book, Michelle Goldberg called this tendency "Christian Nationalism," and this tendency represents a form of generic or "soft" dominionism. For example, Bruce Barron argues that Pat Robertson's "explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors ... a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism" [2] (p. 12)." Which of these authors use the term "Generic" or "Soft" Dominionism? Michelle Goldberg? Apparently she uses the term "Christian Nationalism". Bruce Barron? Apparently he uses the term "Dominionist" without either "soft" or "generic". So on what basis is it asserted that the tendency that Michelle Goldberg calls "Christian Nationalism" is "generic" or "soft" dominionism? Frjohnwhiteford 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Another example, the article currently asserts: "Dominionism within the Christian Right grows out of theological challenges posed by Schaeffer and Rushdoony." Says who? This is stated as a fact. It is not a fact, it is an opinion of some... but it is not identified as such. In place of evidence, we have the quoted assertion that begins "It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy." It is difficult... and yet this writer somehow is able to discern the influence by use of his third eye, apparently.
3. Another undocumented assertion: "Hard Dominionism is primarily associated with certain Calvinists who hold a postmillennialist eschatology. John Calvin's Geneva, and the Puritans are considered antecedents of this strain."
4. Another assertion of fact that should be identified as the views of some: " Although the number of ideologically self-conscious advocates is small, this movement, by virtue of the blunt consistency of its rhetoric, has exercised influence far out of proportion to the number of self-identifying adherents."
5. Another assertion of fact that should be identified as the views of some: "In recent years, another type of Dominionism has developed among premillennialist Evangelicals, primarily charismatics. This version is essentially pessimistic concerning general society. Christian activism is seen as a sort of holding action against the inevitable coming of the Antichrist. This group differs from the first in key areas such as support for Israel. (The conservative television personality Pat Robertson is usually considered an example of this second type." One problem with the above assertion is that the people referenced above do not envision a Christian Dominion prior to the Eschaton. All Christians envision the rule of Christ coming with the Eschaton. Frjohnwhiteford 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. These are excellnt point. I have numbered your list, so that editors can respond to your inquiries about sources and lack of attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On point #1, I can tell you that "hard" and "soft" dominionism are found in the work of Clarkson[14] and Berlet[15]. Others may point out more original usages than these two articles, both from 2005. I attribute the fact that these are not currently cited in the proper sections to my sense that the current article was written by committee and needs an overhaul. --BlueMoonlet 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarkson does not use the word "generic" at all. Chip uses the word "generic" in one sense, and "soft" in another:

"In its generic sense, dominionism is a very broad political tendency within the Christian Right. It ranges from soft to hard versions in terms of its theocratic impulse."

In other words, here at least, Generic refers to the spectrum of hard and soft. Aside from that, the section should be introduced something along the lines of "Some critics distinguish between what they term "hard" and "soft" dominionism. Frjohnwhiteford 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing without comment

Bluemoonlet was kind enough to provide sources in response to my question about the terms "Generic" "Soft" and "Hard" dominionism. Based on those sources, it is clear that someone conflated the terms "generic" and "soft", despite the fact that the source that used them did not use them synonymously. I did an edit to reflect that, attributed the definitions to the source that used and defined the terms, and then FeloniousMonk reverted the edits without comment on the talk page, but with simply the edit summary "rv. to last without WP:SYNTH issues". After reviewing that section in the style manual, I fail to see how it applies. I did not assume my edits would be the final form or the section... but rather than just reverting to an erroneous edit without comment, should we not instead improve a section with our edits... and to do so with some interaction and commentary here?

For those of you who have wondered why editing this article has moved slowly, this is why. You commented that there was "complaining" without any actual movement... well the complaining has been an attempt to identify issues... but I personally have been slow to actually make edits myself just because have editors that do not engage in the discussion here, but who will just undo any work that is put into doing anything to address these "complaints". Frjohnwhiteford 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This really is becoming a problem. There is constructive conversation going on here at the talk page, and constructive edits are coming out of it. For people to revert those edits without engaging in constructive conversation is quite unseemly. --BlueMoonlet 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that FM will explain his edit. In any case I could not be satisfied with a paragraph that starts with "Some critics distinguish between...". It would be better to name the people that make the distinction and avoid casting assessments about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think the use of the word "critic" in this context is anything but an objective description of who we are talking about... it is certainly not the advocates that use this term, and there are precious few people who use it at all. But I just modified it to reference Chip, since he provides a definition, and he is now referred to as a "writer" rather than a "critic"... though I would point out that the Dominionism Template refers to him as a critic... and no one has thus far objected. Frjohnwhiteford 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am clearly a "critic" in my non-Wiki persona as Chip Berlet, and as such have no objection to that term being used in this entry. I thought the edit by Frjohnwhiteford was constructive. (just back from fly fishing in Maine).--Cberlet 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also am hoping FM will explain his edit, and also that Odd nature will drop by to explain his revert to FM's edit. We need to work together to move this article forward, and that requires both WP:AGF and discussion on Talk. --profg 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but experience has taught me that there are some here who are not interested in good faith discussions to resolve content disputes, but rather see the talk page as a means of wearing down opponents to their treatment of articles as soapboxes. And WP:AGF clearly says "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." There's been sufficient evidence to the contrary at this article and elsewhere. Established editors are under no obligation to respond to changes rejected previously for not stacking up well against policy, nor would I advise them to do so. Odd nature 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So which wiki policy entitles an editor, such as yourself, to just undo other edits, without making any effort to explain or defend your reasons for doing so? I would say that there is good evidence that some editors are lacking in good faith too. We probably disagree as to who they are. I would suggest that continued unilateral edits without any regard for the opinions of others is a good sign of that lack of good faith. Frjohnwhiteford 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that other than actually clarifying who it is that uses the term, and providing documentation that this was so (whereas the previous edit was simply an undocumented assertion), and removing the word "generic" which was misused in the previous edit, the content of this section has not substantially changed, and so I fail to see where the alleged [WP:SYNTH] issues are to be found in any change that I made. Frjohnwhiteford 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I find Odd nature's response rather appalling. Whatever clashes you have had elsewhere on WP, there is no excuse for such a blatant ad hominem argument. The quality of an edit is determined by its content, not by your opinion of the editor. Repeatedly removing someone's legitimate work, and refusing a request to engage on the talk page, is simply unacceptable. --BlueMoonlet 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Odd nature reverts without discussing here amongst editors that are obviously working hard to get this article up to snuff. His only comments are attacks in his edit summaries. I personally find this appalling as well, and am hoping he will cease and desist soon. --profg 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Strawman draft for article overhaul

I would like to submit for consideration this strawman draft for overhaul of this article (current version here for posterity). Keeping in mind the many good points made above, I have tried to do several things in rewriting the article:

1. Clarity and readability: In many cases, the original (current mainspace) article has statements on the same subject scattered through the article, and some topics are "introduced" multiple times. Furthermore, its readability is often quite clunky, as if it were written by committee (which it probably was). I have collected statements on similar subjects and tried to group them together. I have eliminated lengthy sections with vague titles ("Range of Dominionist ideas", "Dominionism debated") and tried to keep to short tightly-written sections with descriptive titles. In the course of doing this, much of the language in the original (current mainspace) article has been reworked, but most of it is still there in some form. Some language blocks that were removed entirely, along with my reasons, can be found in this outtakes page.

2. I have scrupulously tried to maintain the orientation of an NPOV discussion of how the term is used, without assuming that any one definition of Dominionism is "correct."

3 I have scrupulously tried to cite reliable sources for all major and/or controversial statements in the article.

4. Explain infobox items: Every person or organization listed in Template:Dominionism (current version) is now mentioned in the article with the best citations I could find (I scoured Talk:Dominionism and Template talk:Dominionism, including archives) for including them. This format should help us in the future to discuss what should and should not be in the infobox.

Of course, you may think that I have gotten some things wrong. You may even be right.  :) I have tried as well as I can to understand this subject matter and write about it fairly, but I gladly welcome constructive criticism. Insults, assumptions of bad faith, and unelaborated citations of WP policy pages will be ignored. You are welcome to make relatively minor (on the "sprucing-up" level) edits to the strawman on your own initiative. I would prefer that any substantial issues be discussed below before action is taken on them. Given the contentiousness of this issue in the past, let's aim for at least an approximation of WP:CONSENSUS before editing the mainspace. Thank you in advance for a productive discussion. --BlueMoonlet 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this, BlueMoonlet. I think your draft is a great improvement on the current version. I have taken the liberty of tweaking a few minor things, and two others that I would like to suggest: standardize to italics in phrases like "the term dominionism" (cf. WP:MOS#Italics), and convert the footnotes to a notes/references model by taking the page numbers into the notes rather than listing them inline (cf. WP:CITE#Maintaining_a_separate_.22References.22_section_in_addition_to_.22Notes.22 and, as examples, Demosthenes and Islam). Also, I think it a little dubious to list former advocates in the Template unless they played a significant role as dominionists, which it doesn't appear that they have. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Flex. I did not feel I had the interest/energy for either of these tasks. Please feel free. --BlueMoonlet 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Flex, I didn't take the time to look at the links you provided before saying "yes" to your notes/references idea. Now that I have, I'm not sure I agree. There are only a few places where specific page numbers are cited inline, and I don't know that that number is enough to change over to a (as it seems to me) more confusing system in which the reader first has to follow a footnote to get the author and year, and then has to find that author and year in a separate alphabetical references section. I had thought you just meant to separate notes and references in separate sections, which Demosthenes does do by sequencing the notes with letters instead of numbers. But this is done by hardwiring the letters into the code, which (as a LaTeX user) offends me greatly on principle. :) I suppose I wouldn't mind if you want to go ahead and do that, but it would be nice if someone would develop a <note> tag that advances alphabetically to go along with the <ref> tag that advances numerically. Anyway, that's a long and only marginally relevant ramble. --BlueMoonlet 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would rather just swap the new version into the mainspace and edit from there. It is a more democratic and collective way of editing an entry. It is the only real way to determina consensus. Editing in sandbox space is great for a rewrite, but dubious once a solid version has been written.--Cberlet 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you think is best, I am happy to comply. Done. --BlueMoonlet 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Odd nature has reverted this change. I hope s/he will soon enlighten us with his/her specific criticisms here. I think the changes improved the article overall from the previous version, even if it needs more work. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back. A majority of active editors prefer to fix the new version rather than fight over the old. I have lots of suggestions and changes, but to be honest, the new version is better written and better cited. I will dig up more cites to authors other than Diamond, Clarkson, and Berlet; but until I do it is fair to suggest the current version is properly cited. It will be much easier to tinker with a well-written version than to go back to a rather choppy and repetative old version. This is less about POV than recognizing a good editing job has having intrinsic value, even if the POV has shifted in one direction. If we want to shift the POV back to a more critical stance, it is up to us to find the cites. That's only fair. --Cberlet 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag again

Frjohn, why do you think that the POV tag should remain on the article? It's not clear to me that ON was wrong this time. --BlueMoonlet 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to go over the lattest version of the article thoroughly myself, and I suspect I am not alone. I think there should be a consensus that all NPOV issues have been resolved before it is removed. I do think we are getting there, if we are not there yet. Frjohnwhiteford 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I think it is about as close to neutral as we are likely to get any time soon. So I am OK with removing the NPOV tag. Frjohnwhiteford 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem appropriate to me without a sitation, "A common view among evangelical Christians is that the granting of "dominion" in Genesis 1:28 includes a "cultural mandate" to influence all aspects of the world with Christian principles." It's a bit of weasel wording, and an unsourced claim. Could it be sourced or removed? Basejumper2 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Two more problems: In the "Soft Dominionism" section, it lists criticism of soft dominionism. One of them is "ethnocentric." I have never heard Christian used as an ethnic term, so I'm not sure how dominonism can be ethnocentric. Can we get a source for this criticism. Also further down it lists George Washington's quote about the US never persecuting Jews as a proof it was not founded on Christian ideals. Again, I'm not certain persecution of Jews is a Christian ideal. Basejumper2 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of references on the cultural mandate, and I will work on collecting some. I have no disagreement with your other two criticisms. The discussion of the concept of a "Christian nation" in that section is idiosyncratic and way too brief. It really should be the basis of an entire article on "Christian nation," which is a much more widespread term than Dominionism. But I do not have the interest or energy to write such an article. --BlueMoonlet 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Leftists: Domonists?

Wouldn't Christian leftists who want to enforce their morality upon non-Christians-- William Jennings Bryan, Al Sharpton, Hugo Chavez, et cetera-- be considered as "dominionist" as Focus on the Family, if not more so? Revolutionaryluddite 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, aren't Catholics also "dominionist"? See the article for Catholic social teaching.Revolutionaryluddite 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the label is not aplied to them in a reliable source, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet, who's article says "is senior analyst at Political Research Associates in the Boston area. Berlet is co–author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (Guilford, 2000) and editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash (South End Press, 1995), both of which received a Gustavus Myers Center Award for outstanding scholarship on the subject of human rights and bigotry in North America", defines and describes 'dominionism' as this article does and lists 'Catholic' as a 'dominionist' theology. Berlet wrote in Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort that "These subcultures were Protestant Christian Reconstructionism and apocalyptic Catholic traditionalism. They took the lead in shaping dominion- ism". Dr. David R. Koepsell wrote in the Secular Humanist Bulletin that "Now, dominionism is not limited to the pentecostal and fundamentalist Christian communities, but sweeps through Episcopalian and Roman Catholic communities". These are partisan sources, but the term 'dominionism' itself is a relatively obscure term used almost exclusively by partisan sources. See the google results for 'moonbat' and 'bush derangement syndrome', which are as popular or more popular than 'dominionism' and are used in the same way. Revolutionaryluddite 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis and original research

I've removed the "Dominionism as the Christian Right" section. It relied completely on primary sources to make its point and provided NO secondary sources to support said point. If anyone wants to return this section to the article they are going to need to need to find neutral, reliable secondary and tertiary sources that say this the term is misused by Hedges, Yurica and others, not primary sources to make a synthesis, see WP:SYNTH. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I dispute your reasoning, FM, but for tonight I'm not going to say more than this: Is Chip Berlet's criticism of this usage not a secondary source? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Chip was not used as a source in the section. Furthermore, the section had a clearly biased tone that had fatal flaws with WP:SYNTH: "Chris Hedges began using the term dominionism in his articles attacking the Christian Right..., etc." Chip's published comment in no way supports that statement. And it just got worse from there. Furthermore, Chip's close enough to the topic, having been the primary journalist to define it for the public, to be seen as a primary source. In fact, he is cited throughout this article as a primary source. Until better sources are provided, both secondary and tertiary, the section stays out. FeloniousMonk 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How are Hedges, Yurica and others "misusing" the term? I don't understand; they have a different definition of the term and, from their point of view, are using it correctly. Revolutionaryluddite 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed the deleted section and I see your point about sourcing (since the Berlet source is more ambigouously related than I thought). Revolutionaryluddite 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section and removed the phrases "attacking the Christian Right" and "Eschewing the subtleties..." You were correct to point out those phrases as not in keeping with the goal of describing usage of the term without judging any usage as right or wrong. Before you revert me, FM, I would appreciate the courtesy of an answer to these two questions: 1) Do you actually doubt the truth of anything that remains in the section? WP:V and WP:RS do not state that everything must be sourced, but only "material challenged or likely to be challenged." 2) Is there a single secondary source cited anywhere in this article? It seems you'd have to delete the whole discussion if you were really to adhere to your principle of "no primary sources." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't wording, it's content. The section uses primary sources to argue for a conclusion not present in those sources. The section in question makes an observation about Hedges ("began using the term..."); two articles and one book by Hedges are used to support the statement. Does Hedges say "I began using the term..." in any of these sources? Taking a primary source (Hedges' writing) and using it to make a novel conclusion is not acceptable. The next sentence says "Unlike Diamond and Clarkson and Berlet, Hedges used "dominionism" to refer more generally to the intersection between conservative Christians and right-wing politics." That statement is unsupported by any reference. The third sentence says "Hedges has been followed in this usage by other authors highly critical of the Christian Right...". Again, the list only references their own work. These articles could only be used as supporting references if they say something to the effect of "following Chris Hedges, I used the term dominionism in [this] way". Looking at a few of them, they don't do anything of the sort.

The section is classic synthesis. The statements it makes appear to be totally unsupported. Guettarda 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to rewrite the text, not flag all the authors who are already properly cited in the notes. I agree the text needs a revision, but a flagging frenzy is not constructive.--Cberlet 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

None of these citations support the statements made. It isn't "properly cited" - the citations do not support the statements made in the section. Guettarda 14:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to add sources that support the assertion in the article. The sources do not support the assertions made. The section is making claims which the sources do not. You might as well be adding random sources. Please stop! Guettarda 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The only claim being made is that these authors do not distinguish between Dominionism and the Christian Right. In any case, I would very much like to see what Cberlet would do with this section. Why don't we give him the chance? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the section is saying that Hedges started using the term "dominionist" in 2000. Source? The section says that Hedges is using it as synonymous with the Christian Right. Source? The section says that these other authors followed Hedges in his usage. Source?

The statements are all unsourced. You can read Hedges and conclude that he is using the term dominionist differently, but that's your own conclusion, it isn't something we have a source for. Is Hedges saying "I am using the term as a synonym for the Christian Right"? If so, where? You can't use your own interpretation of Hedges' writing to come up with that assertion. Similarly, you can't look at Yurica's writing, or Goldberg's and say they are following Hedges in their usage unless they say so themselves. If so, where do they say so? It isn't that the statements are true or untrue, it's that we have no secondary source that says so. Policy does not permit us to use primary sources to support our own interpretation of things. It just doesn't. So, without a supporting secondary source, we can't draw these sorts of conclusions. Not from these sources. They just don't support the assertions. Guettarda 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the extensive list of "identified" Dominionsts on the TheocracyWatch page, which had previously eluded me and which should perhaps be folded in here. Perhaps TW, rather than Hedges, should be the focus of this section. The banner over their website currently reads "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." I don't think there is any question that they define Dominionism as this section states. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And you'd be repeating the very same mistake again: relying on a primary source to create a synthesis. Read WP:SYNTH before moving forward; you're going to need some secondary or tertiary sources before making that idea or the previous stand. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Names

Is "Christian Fundamentalist" meant to be an insult directed at me? Or justification for removing text? I am far from fundamentalist. In fact, in case anyone cares, I quite strongly disagree with the Christian Right on both political and theological grounds. My purpose here is only to ensure that the topic is discussed accurately and without hostility. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat the personal attacks. They happen all the time and they will keep happening. Revolutionaryluddite 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that that user recently wrote on his or her talk page "I rarely good faith to editors" and "My edit summaries can be anything from somewhat sarcastic to downright rude. I have no tolerance of fools." Again, don't sweat it. Revolutionaryluddite 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism as the Christian Right

I'm concerned that this section constitutes original research. We seem to be making a synthesis based on primary sources. JoshuaZ 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems pointless to blank out all of the references in a single paragraph and replace them with fact tags; what you're left with is unacceptable: a string of 8 fact tags and no references. I attempted to correct this absurdity by directing the matter to talk and reverting the section so that it actually displayed the citations under discussion. Since that attempted reversion has now been characterized as "vandalism" I've instead deleted the section entirely. Looks like it'll be that way for awhile. Mike Doughney 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)