Sarah Palin: Dominionist or No

[Osakadave]

Palin has been accused of being a dominionist. To me, it's a case of "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

But solid evidence seems to be a bit lacking. Is there some real evidence to back it up?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

You mean this kind of dominionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law

[Hamlet]

I'm sure many conservative men can picture her in leather as a Dominionist, but she does nothing for me.

[Osakadave]

You mean this kind of dominionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

Indeed exactly so.

An example:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213

[FriarTed]

This is Conspiracy-Theorizing of the Left. She goes to this church! Some people use this terminology! Other people who use this terminology are dangerous fanatics! It's this sort of crap that caused me to leave the John Birch Society.


When Sarah Palin talks about Christians taking the reigns of society & enforcing Biblical Law, then she can be called a Dominionist.

Btw, I don't think being a Dominionist is necessarily a bad thing. There are a wide variety of Dominionisms. I could make a case that Barack Obama is a liberal Dominionist. *G*

[BrainGlutton]

There are a wide variety of Dominionisms.

No, there aren't.

I could make a case that Barack Obama is a liberal Dominionist. *G*

No, you couldn't.

[FriarTed]

No, there aren't.



No, you couldn't.

Yes there is. There's the Kingdom Now/Word of Faith Pentecostals, which includes the DailyKos bugaboo of "Joel's Army", there's the Christian Reconstructionists; there's various forms of Christian conservatives & theological Post-Millenialists who wouldn't identify with either of the two previous groups. In the first two groups, there are splinters & rivalries. If one has a broad definition of "a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law", then that includes a LOT of people who have a LOT of differences with each other.

Re Barack- No, I couldn't, really. I was being flippant.

EXCEPT if I played the "This person associates with that person, who reads this book by this pastor, who uses this church music, which is produced by another church which teaches Dominionism" guilt-by-association game. Granted- right now my side is more interested in using that to link Obama to Communists & terrorists. But I bet someone who really tried could link Obama up somehow.
Heck, there was Hillary's conncection with the sinister *cue organ music* "The Family"! Wait................ has Barack attended the National Prayer Breakfast? HMMM!

*G*

[chacoguy]

I misread and thought you were asking if she was a dominatrix.:D

Never mind, carry on.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

I misread and thought you were asking if she was a dominatrix.:D

Never mind, carry on.

Now now, just because she wants to walk over the entire country and crush them in spiked heels does not make her a dominatrix

[foolsguinea]

Probably, Palin's in Joel's Army about as much as Barry's in the Nation of Islam.

[panache45]

I misread and thought you were asking if she was a dominatrix.:D

Never mind, carry on.

Me too, and I was going to answer with a resounding "YES!"

[BrainGlutton]

Yes there is. There's the Kingdom Now/Word of Faith Pentecostals, which includes the DailyKos bugaboo of "Joel's Army", there's the Christian Reconstructionists; there's various forms of Christian conservatives & theological Post-Millenialists who wouldn't identify with either of the two previous groups. In the first two groups, there are splinters & rivalries. If one has a broad definition of "a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law", then that includes a LOT of people who have a LOT of differences with each other.

Well, I was going by this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#The_spectrum_of_dominionism)

The spectrum of dominionism

Writers including Chip Berlet[63] and Frederick Clarkson[19] distinguish between what they term "hard" and "soft" dominionism. "Soft" dominionists are defined as those who believe that America is a Christian nation. "Hard" dominionists are defined as those who advocate the establishment of a theocracy.

Soft dominionism (Christian nationalism)

The term soft dominionism is applied to various Christian Right social and political movements that claim that "America is a Christian nation." Soft Dominionists also disclaim the existence of the "wall of separation" between church and state. In her book, Michelle Goldberg called this tendency "Christian Nationalism."[20] Berlet and Clarkson have agreed that "[s]oft Dominionists are Christian nationalists."[63]

Unlike "dominionism", "Christian nation" is language that is commonly found in the writings of Christian Right leaders themselves. Proponents of this idea (such as David Barton and D. James Kennedy) argue that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character is fundamental to American culture.[64][65][66] They cite, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court's comment in 1892 that "this [the United States] is a Christian nation",[67] after citing numerous historical and legal arguments in support of that statement.[68][69]

Critics[70] argue the claim that the United States is a Christian nation is of questionable historic validity (often pointing out the deist beliefs of some of the founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson's[71] in particular), is ethnocentric, and reduces secularists and members of other religions (such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Neopaganism) to second-class status. Other critics cite the Treaty with Tripoli (1796) passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,"[72] and George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas, in which Washington defended religious freedom for Jews ("For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance"[73])[74][75]


Hard dominionism

Main article: Dominion Theology

The term hard dominionism is used to describe forms of dominionism which evidently envision, and work toward, a future (prior to the Second Coming of Christ) in which all the institutions of society will be governed by the principles of their form of Christian faith. This definition certainly fits Christian Reconstructionists and other adherents to Dominion Theology. Some apply it also to the more strident elements within the mainstream Christian Right.

Not much difference there in content of doctrine. The disctinct subsects you point out are interesting to know about, ignorance fought, but from a non-Dominionist POV they're distinctions without differences -- just variant flavors of shit, as you, good Christian that you are, know as well as I.

[C K Dexter Haven]

My understanding is that the name comes from the idea that God gave Adam "dominion" over all the earth, and this is interpreted as meaning that we do NOT need to worry about the environment or animal extinctions or conservation, God will take care of everything and has told us that whatever we do is OK.

It would be useful to know if this is indeed among Palin's beliefs.

[Skald the Rhymer]

You mean this kind of dominionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

I figured it was someone who worshipped shapeshifters and wanted all solids to be under their rule.

[MEBuckner]

My understanding is that the name comes from the idea that God gave Adam "dominion" over all the earth, and this is interpreted as meaning that we do NOT need to worry about the environment or animal extinctions or conservation, God will take care of everything and has told us that whatever we do is OK.

It would be useful to know if this is indeed among Palin's beliefs.
Although I believe the terms "dominionism" and "dominion theology" do come from Genesis 1:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=28&version=9&context=verse), and although some Christian conservatives do (based on this and other passages in the Bible) take the sort of attitude towards environmentalism that's described, in American politics dominionism or dominion theology are usually taken to mean the idea that Christians ought to have dominion over the broader society--as R.J. Rushdoony put it, that "[o]ur lives, families, churches, schools, states, and vocations, as well as all things else, must be totally dedicated to God" (that is, to the God of Calvinist Christianity)--and therefore that Christians ought to govern and that the state ought to be explicitly Christian. In its more extreme form, this is coupled with the idea of theonomy or God's law: That not only should Christians rule, but that they should govern in accordance with (their interpretation of) Biblical law; i.e., government enforcement of laws against sodomy, blasphemy, and idolatry, even up to making those things capital crimes.

The best-developed school of this sort of dominionism/theonomy is the Christian Reconstructionist movement (founded back in the '70's by the late R.J. Rushdoony quoted above, from the extreme conservative fringes of American Presbyterianism); there are also other groups, most notably the "Kingdom Now" movement mentioned by FriarTed, which are theologically very distinct (Reconstructionists being very Calvinistic, and Kingdom Now being from the more wild reaches of Pentecostalism, which theologically speaking is mostly pretty anathema to conservative Calvinists).

I have no idea if Sarah Palin is even remotely tied to any of this. Given the genuinely scary ideas associated with dominionism and theonomy--there are some really choice quotes from Rushdoony and other Reconstructionist leaders about "death without mercy" to idolaters and the need to deny religious liberty to the "enemies of God"--there is a tendency among some on the left to play at McCarthyite-style "connect the dots" to tie all sorts of conservatives and right-wingers in with the extremists of the dominionist movements. Most of the time this probably has about as much validity as the claims of some on that right that every union organizer or ACLU member is some sort of Communist; on the other hand, if any of these guys are getting anywhere close to political power in this country, we definitely need to know about it.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, I was going by this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#The_spectrum_of_dominionism)



Not much difference there in content of doctrine. The disctinct subsects you point out are interesting to know about, ignorance fought, but from a non-Dominionist POV they're distinctions without differences -- just variant flavors of shit, as you, good Christian that you are, know as well as I.

Granted, which I think was your main point, FriarTed, we have no more reason to believe Palin is an actual Dominionist of any kind than we have to believe Obama is a black liberation theologian.

But if both were true, the latter is by any measure preferable to the former.

[FriarTed]

Granted, which I think was your main point, FriarTed, we have no more reason to believe Palin is an actual Dominionist of any kind than we have to believe Obama is a black liberation theologian.

But if both were true, the latter is by any measure preferable to the former.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of that as my main point. I wish it was. That's pretty good.

So let's say that yeah, I meant to say that all along!:D

[foolsguinea]

My understanding is that the name comes from the idea that God gave Adam "dominion" over all the earth, and this is interpreted as meaning that we do NOT need to worry about the environment or animal extinctions or conservation, God will take care of everything and has told us that whatever we do is OK.

It would be useful to know if this is indeed among Palin's beliefs.I was raised in a church where that belief was very common, but a reading of the teachings of Jesus persuaded me it was exactly backwards. A creator loves his creation, & Jesus was a prophet of vengeance on the wicked.

[Kimstu]

"Soft dominionism" might be a possible description of Palin's beliefs, going by this article (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/18/palin_iacc/):

In April 2000, under the direction of then-Mayor Sarah Palin, the Wasilla City Council passed a resolution declaring itself a "City of Character." [...]

Thanks to Palin's efforts, Wasilla is now among roughly 200 cities nationwide (and others in 27 countries around the world) that have committed themselves -- in name, at least -- to following the teachings of the International Association of Character Cities (IACC), an organization that purports to be secular but is modeled on the evangelical teachings of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP).

Palin's personal connection to IACC, and her efforts to bring its agenda to Wasilla as mayor, sheds new light on her connections to the Christian far right [...]

IBLP was founded in 1974 by evangelist Bill Gothard "for the purpose of introducing people to the Lord Jesus Christ," and is "dedicated to giving individuals, families, churches, schools, communities, governments, and businesses clear instruction and training on how to find success by following God's principles found in Scripture." [...]

Palin, [IACC founder Stephen] Menzel confirmed, learned how Wasilla could become a City of Character at an IACC conference held at IBLP's International Training Center in Indianapolis in April 2000. A conference brochure shows that Gothard and other speakers affiliated with IBLP taught several of the sessions. The conference included a videotape presentation on the separation of church and state by David Barton, a regular on the Christian right speaking circuit who argues that the separation of church and state is a "myth."

I think it's fair to say that whether or not Palin is herself a soft dominionist, she certainly pals around with some soft dominionists.

[BrainGlutton]

My understanding is that the name comes from the idea that God gave Adam "dominion" over all the earth, and this is interpreted as meaning that we do NOT need to worry about the environment or animal extinctions or conservation, God will take care of everything and has told us that whatever we do is OK.

There are Christian environmentalists who interpret that passage as meaning God gave humanity only "stewardship" over the Earth, and will hold us accountable for how we take care of it.