Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:51 PM Jun 2016

The Radical Theology That Could Make Religious Freedom a Thing of the Past

Even devout Christians should fear these influential leaders' refusal to separate church and state.

by David R. Brockman
Published Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:57 am CST

Though it’s seldom mentioned by name, it’s one of the major forces in Texas politics today: dominion theology, or dominionism. What began as a fringe evangelical sect in the 1970s has seen its influence mushroom — so much so that sociologist Sara Diamond has called dominionism “the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right.” (Italics hers.) That’s especially true here in Texas, where dominionist beliefs have, over the last decade, become part and parcel of right-wing politics at the highest levels of government.

So, what is it? Dominionism fundamentally opposes America’s venerable tradition of church-state separation — in fact, dominionists deny the Founders ever intended that separation in the first place. According to Frederick Clarkson, senior fellow for religious liberty at the non-profit social justice think tank Political Research Associates, dominionists believe that Christians “have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions — including government — until the second coming of Jesus.” And that should worry all Texans — Christians and non-Christians alike.

Dominionism comes in “soft” and “hard” varieties. “Hard” dominionism (sometimes called Christian Reconstructionism), as Clarkson describes it, explicitly seeks to replace secular government, and the U.S. Constitution, with a system based on Old Testament law.

The father of hard dominionism, the late Presbyterian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, called for his followers to “take back government … and put it in the hands of Christians.”

https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Radical Theology That Could Make Religious Freedom a Thing of the Past (Original Post) rug Jun 2016 OP
If they think the founders weren't interested in religious freedom dflprincess Jun 2016 #1
Worth repeating. rug Jun 2016 #2
Now I understand why some people want the semicolon banned muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #4
Heh. Free your paragraphs, Tom! rug Jun 2016 #5
How it was done in the 18th century dflprincess Jun 2016 #6
If these turds attempt to take over the government, sane people will have to fight. PatrickforO Jun 2016 #3
I really can't see any of those clowns winning an honest fight for national office struggle4progress Jun 2016 #7

dflprincess

(28,078 posts)
1. If they think the founders weren't interested in religious freedom
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:57 PM
Jun 2016

they should be made to explain why Jefferson left explicit instructions that, of all his accomplishment, the only 3 to be mentioned on his tombstore were:

Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia

No doubt we'd be told it really wasn't what he meant.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
2. Worth repeating.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:01 PM
Jun 2016
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.


http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1357

dflprincess

(28,078 posts)
6. How it was done in the 18th century
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:02 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think I would have gotten this "run on sentencce" past my 7th grade English teacher. (I bet you wouldn't have either.)

PatrickforO

(14,574 posts)
3. If these turds attempt to take over the government, sane people will have to fight.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:44 AM
Jun 2016

Because I'm not living in a theocracy.

struggle4progress

(118,282 posts)
7. I really can't see any of those clowns winning an honest fight for national office
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jun 2016

Of course, the radical rightwing Christians are part of the current bizarre Republican coalition that includes the laissez-faire corporatists, the libertarians, the balanced-budget conservatives, the social conservatives, the racist anti-integrationists, the xenophobic nativists -- together with who knows what other strange beings we find when we turn over rocks -- but it's an unstable coalition IMO, and it's based on the principle that it's sometimes easier to unite people in outraged opposition than it is to generate a productive consensus

I guess all bets might be off if we have a galvanizing national catastrophe, but right now I can't see those nuts making much more headway

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Radical Theology That...