Larry Darby's new label: "Dominionists"

[Shake]

First off, don't panic, it's not another "Bright" idea.

From the Atheist News Service daily email (9/27 issue):
I have stressed the need to begin calling those we typically refer to as "fundamentalists", etc., by the name "Dominionists". That label is appropriate because it aptly describes those persons seeking to undermine our constitutional republic by promoting a return to Biblical values, particularly Jewish law found in the Torah or Old Testament. They can be Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
Well, it doesn't compact quite as nicely ... as compared to fundies ... but it doesn't seem like a particularly bad term. In the 9/29 issue, he says:As "Dominionism" should enter the English lexicon to make it easier for the population to grasp the threats to liberty that movement presents, "materialism", as the antidote to theism or immaterialism, needs to be introduced to the population.

Oh, and as an aside, as yet another counter to the Brights arguments, he offers this quote (I believe from Chapman Cohen):"ATHEIST is really a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term, it admits of no paltering and of no evasion, and the need of the world, now as ever, is for clear-cut issues and unambiguous speech."

Thoughts on "Dominionism"?

[bernie43]

Thoughts on "Dominionism"? Absolutism, Literalsim, Totalism or Totalitarianism would do too?

We could be Anti-totalitarianists.

Fundies are a good word already established. Anti-fundies would be easy to grasp for most?

Non-fundies maybe a better word?

Are realy Atheists such a good working word. Maybe in US but not in Europe.

Take Norway. They have more than 40.000 organized in Human-Ethical Associaltion. Human-Etisk Förbund. Maybe they are 60.000 or so.

How many organised Atheists do they have? None I know of. Hedniga Förbundet are Heathen Association in English. Sweden have no Atheist Alliance either nor findland nor Denmark nor Germany nor France nor ...

Atheists doesn't work here. Only in US due to the extreme dominance of Christian right in your country.

so Non-fundieism would work better in Northern Western part of world. Maybe India would have a market for Atheism? I know too little about India.

Bernt

[EverLastingGodStopper]

From the Atheist News Service daily email ... Thoughts on "Dominionism"?
Shake, I've been following Darby's efforts and I will contribute more to this thread as soon as I can. I hope more ANS readers will opine on this issue, and feel free to quote from the ANS as long as you give proper credit when quoting.

[Godless Wonder]

Well, it doesn't compact quite as nicely ...? Dommies? I guess you're right, that isn't very nice.

[Writer@Large]

Hmm. It's a lexigraphic conundrum. "Fundamentalists," especially in our usage and with the short form "fundies," carries a lot of mocking, insulting overtones ... but, I would argue, generally non-threatening. "Dominionists" sounds a lot more threatening as a label, especially as it related, etymologicall, to "Dominate" and "Domination" (they share the Latin root dominionem "ownership," and dominus "lord or master"), neighter of which is a word we think pleasantly on.

However, "Fundamentalist" is a name they gave themselves, or at least earned historically as supporters of Fundamentalism in social and religious movements. "Dominionists" would be a totally derogatory name that we, their enemies, have labeled them with. How many would even be willing to recognize the name as pertaining to them? How many would see its use as a sign that we're not open for civil discourse or debate, if we choose to use our own, derogatory name for them? Can you imagine having a conversation with someone who kept refering to you as a "Communist" or a "anti-God-ist?"

--W@L

[Toto]

Larry Darby sends out a useful newletter, but there are times when I wonder about him. He seems obsessed with Jews. He wants to emphasize the Jewishness of the Ten Commandments, although I emailed him and pointed out that the particular version of the 10C that is almost always in question is a distinctly Protestant version, and not one that Jews would use. He has included some anti-Semitic propaganda in his links. He accuses the ACLU and AU of being pro-Jewish because they support some religious accomodation.

"Dominionist" is a word with an established meaning, equivalent to Christian Reconstructionist. Not all Fundamentalists are Dominionists. Using the term Dominionist would be inaccurate and would just muddy the water.

Fundamentalist is a descriptive word that pretty fairly conveys its meaning. Dominionist is not the same, does not serve the purpose of communication.

[Garnet]

Bleah...someone is going to end up calling them "Doms" which really has a whole nother connotation.

Personally, I like assholes better.

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Great. :rolleyes:

Let's just pick something to label other people rather than doing things to get along with others of differing opinions.

DC

[bernie43]

Bridgebuilders between diverse worldviews maybe?

[Rusting Car Bumper]

I have no idea what thats supposed to mean.

DC

[EverLastingGodStopper]

In the October 5 ANS, Darby says:
We call the enemies to our constitutional republic, both foreign and domestic, "Dominionists" because that term includes Jews as well as neo-cons or Christian fundamentalists.
In September 30's ANS, he referred to the Democratic and Republican Party Candidates for President as "enablers for Dominionism."

I emailed Larry to ask him to tell us more about this word and why he thinks we should use it. If he replies, I'll post here.

[Shake]

Thanks to everybody so far for chiming in, especially Toto (I wasn't aware of that use of the word), and ELGS for the clearer thread title as well as for trying to get an answer straight from Darby.

Also, just for the record, I do think that our time could be better spent that trying to re-label everyone (a la the Brights), like doing something to forward our causes.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I think (I am not sure) that "Dominionist" is preferred because it does not limit us to Christians in identifying the "enemy." Muslim and Jewish theocrats are not Christian Reconstructionalists, yet they are every bit as dangerous to the First Amendment as the Radical Religious Right is.

Larry Darby is too busy right now to give me an in-depth reply. He emailed me this today:
I regret that I don’t have time to get into this at the moment. Probably the best way for those who are interested in helping the pro-America fight is to sign up for the Atheist News Service.

But I will say that Dominionism is not a new concept at all, but it has taken a long time to get us to the point of making pro-America activists aware of the threats to liberty.

To be added to the information loop, they need to e-mail to PubliusWrites@knology.net their name, mailing address and telephone number.

Larry
I'm also going out of town for the weekend, so I won't be able to chime in for a few days.

[Calzaer]

However, "Fundamentalist" is a name they gave themselves, or at least earned historically as supporters of Fundamentalism in social and religious movements. "Dominionists" would be a totally derogatory name that we, their enemies, have labeled them with. How many would even be willing to recognize the name as pertaining to them? How many would see its use as a sign that we're not open for civil discourse or debate, if we choose to use our own, derogatory name for them?

In that sense, it really reminds me of "Zionist". It seems like it'd be used specifically for demonizing the same group of people, but also giving the demonizer the ability to split hairs over it. "Oh, I'm not talking about Jews, just Zionists" as compared to "Oh, I'm not talking about Fundamentalists, just Dominionists".

[Toto]

Fundamentalist can refer to Jews, Christians, or Muslims, so I don't know what advantage Dominionist gives.

I think Darby is doing everyone a disservice by attacking the ACLU and AU as enabling Dominionists. He seems to be painting himself into a corner where he along has The Truth and everyone else is Wrong. That's not the way to win friends and influence people.

[Arizonaepu]

But I will say that Dominionism is not a new concept at all, but it has taken a long time to get us to the point of making pro-America activists aware of the threats to liberty.

Some information on Dominionism can be found here:The Despoiling of America (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm)

[Chris Weimer]

can't we expose the truth of what they really are? Fascist.

[Darwin26]

...this viral buch of Xian Reich Rekonstrucktionists will be pin-pointed in the Bush regime... hopefully they'll be ostracized into oblivion... where all fascists belong.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Ostracized into oblivion? They RUN the USA. From the White House to the halls of Congress to the Supreme Court. Don't delude yourself into thinking that theocracy is going to mysteriously vanish. We have to FIGHT for our most basic rights, thanks to the theocrats who Darby prefers to refer to as "Dominionists."

Arizonaepu, thanks for the link to the story which uses this word. Other than reading the ANS, I have never encountered it.

Toto is right on about Darby's opposition to AU and the ACLU. Any group that is not actively ANTI-religion is, to him, an enemy group. When I left American Atheists staff and founded a chapter of AU, Darby expressed his displeasure to me in no uncertain terms. Any accommodation of any religion in any way is an affront to this otherwise fine activist. I read the ANS for the stories/links, and I try to ignore the anti-religion, anti-Israeli occupation stuff.

While I'm not opposed to the use of a single word to describe all theocrats, I do not see myself jumping on the Dominionist bandwagon. (By the way, to me, Fundamentalists are Christians, period. I would never use the word to descibe Jews, Muslims, Republicans, or Democrats. I haven't seen the F word used to describe non-Christians in common practice.)

I'm curious if anyone here is going to begin following Darby's lead and start using "Dominionists" to describe Republicans, Democrats, theocratic groups and people, and other "enemies." Or, is this going to turn out to be (sorry, Shake) "another Bright idea"?

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Ostracized into oblivion? They RUN the USA. From the White House to the halls of Congress to the Supreme Court. Don't delude yourself into thinking that theocracy is going to mysteriously vanish. We have to FIGHT for our most basic rights, thanks to the theocrats who Darby prefers to refer to as "Dominionists."

STUFF SNIPPED...

Very enlightening. I think you are correct. I am surprised at how naive my fellow non-theists are.

One recent example was the "Under God" case with Newdow. People seem to be equally naive and willing to jump on a quick fix wagon that they fail to see how entrenched the open theocratic ideas are.

I'm curious if anyone here is going to begin following Darby's lead and start using "Dominionists" to describe Republicans, Democrats, theocratic groups and people, and other "enemies." Or, is this going to turn out to be (sorry, Shake) "another Bright idea"?

Well you can know I'm not.

The base problem with non-theists is our lack of culture. That is why I advocate a long term approach of forming community...

DC

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Hell yeah, DC. I'm with you. After all, what are churches if not small communities of like-minded people? Just as there are many churches, there are SO many online and real world atheist and secular communities... different strokes for different folks, of course.

Those of us who go to the Atheists Meetup (http://atheists.meetup.com), who have atheist-only paties, who attend the events of our local Freethought groups, who join atheist message boards and listservs, who share ourselves and our atheism with others, we ARE communities. And we're pissing those Dominionists off no matter what we call them. ;)

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Hell yeah, DC. I'm with you. After all, what are churches if not small communities of like-minded people? Just as there are many churches, there are SO many online and real world atheist and secular communities... different strokes for different folks, of course.

Those of us who go to the Atheists Meetup (http://atheists.meetup.com), who have atheist-only paties, who attend the events of our local Freethought groups, who join atheist message boards and listservs, who share ourselves and our atheism with others, we ARE communities. And we're pissing those Dominionists off no matter what we call them. ;)

Well I'd argue that we are NOT communities except for a very few exceptions. Having a "meetup" is not community. It requires no commitment and no long term outlook. It just requires me to show up and have a beer. Which is fine, of course, but community it's not.

DC

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Au contraire, mon frere, don't make me get WhackAGod and RationalOne in here to derail the thread with stories of the friendships we've formed on private email lists comprised of Meetup attendees. ;) The Delaware Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.dvau.org) was formed as a direct result of 2 Meetup.com events.

Those nasty old Domionists aka theocrats aka Reconstructionalists aka freedom-hating mysognist religious brainwashers just have no idea how valuable a tool Meetup.com is. But yeah, I don't envision myself using the D word in public.

[Gurdur]

.... who have atheist-only paties ....
Paté de foie gras athée ? :eek:

[Rusting Car Bumper]

Au contraire, mon frere, don't make me get WhackAGod and RationalOne in here to derail the thread with stories of the friendships we've formed on private email lists comprised of Meetup attendees. ;) The Delaware Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.dvau.org) was formed as a direct result of 2 Meetup.com events.


Certainly. They can be seeds of that and of that I have no doubt. But CSS groups are not about the base of community either. They are political and litigious. Not only that but CSS is not a non-theist only issue like most all political and litigious issues. Carrying a protest sign does not fulfill my life.

What will move us forward is groups which identify us with our everyday lives. CSS is like the fire department. I want it there but I only want it when there is a fire.

A community group deals with the broad ubiquitous and important parts of our lives. Such base is where the religious get their strength and we have no such strength in any significant regard. What non-theists need are community groups which form the basis for cultural community based activity. We need to stop putting the cart before the horse or better yet we need to start having a cart and a horse and not just one or the other!

DC

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I hate splitting threads, I already messed it up.

There is a new thread about Experience with Atheist Communities here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101654).

Sorry for my own slight derailment, but let's save the rest of this thread for the Dominionists discussion, and we can talk about out real-world atheist group experience in the new thread. Thanks, sorry that I wasn't able to sort the last few posts here into the new thread.

[Shake]

Toto correctly pointed out on page 1 of this thread that the term "Dominionists" is one which is already in use. I just found this article (http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199) in a message on another forum which shows this.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Ah HA! I saw this a few days ago and almost posted it, but I never finished reading it. Thanks for the link and reminder!
The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.

The Act -- drafted by a minion of television evangelist Pat Robertson -- is the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as "Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule" over every aspect of society -- placing "the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!"

According to Dominionist literature, "biblical rule" means execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals and other "revelers in licentiousness"; massive tax cuts for the rich (because "wealth is a mark of God's favor"); the elimination of government programs to alleviate poverty and sickness (because these depend on "confiscation of wealth"); and enslavement for debtors. No legal challenges to "God's order" will be allowed. And because this order is divinely ordained, the "elect" can use any means necessary to establish it, including deception, subversion, even violence. As Robertson himself adjures the faithful: "Zealous men force their way in."
This is exactly what we needed to know about "Dominionists" and the threat they pose.

[Toto]

I think Darby deliberately uses the term Dominionist for people who are not actually Christian Reconstructionists. This is not helpful. He also keeps referring to the Ten Commandments as Jewish, when it is usually the Protestant version that is featured, not the Jewish version.

I think he is trying to define everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% as the enemy. It's just not good politics.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Politically, Darby is a Libertarian. Whereas he is an award-winning atheist activist, he turns a lot of people off with his opinions on such topics as Israel, the role of religion in today's society, and what we should be calling the enemy, and who the enemy is.

I joined Americans United because of its mainstream appeal, so I could distance myself from extremists on my side of the CSS camp. Darby considers AU to be a group that is unworthy of atheist support, because AU collaborates with "the enemy." AU is an "accomodationist" group to him.

He uses "Dominionist" very loosely, as a blanket term for theocrats.

[Newton Joseph]

Oh, and as an aside, as yet another counter to the Brights arguments, he offers this quote (I believe from Chapman Cohen):

Thoughts on "Dominionism"?[/QUOTE]

THE CREDO OF EMPOWERMENT
X
All my life I have made it a rule, never to permit a religious man or woman to take for granted that his or her religious beliefs deserved more consideration than non-religious or anti-religious ones. I never agree with the foolish statement that I ought to respect the views of others when I believe them to be wrong
Chapman Cohen, Freethinker
New 10.
:devil1:

[Darwin26]

in accessing the associative names i think John Birchers or even Ku Klux Klan would be synonamis with DOMINIONISTS...
i'm not so sure there is gonna be a bridging of differences with this 'group'... i believe they stand to eradicate me, and anyone like me....which might mean a lot of YOU. :D
The more we get the dope out on this 'virulent breed' the easier it will be to contain the toxic effects (of their nefarious bibical bilge).
Problem is, there are a lot of the young xians out there ripe for the Diminion Youth Group ! and they are not much different than the Hamas or Martyrs Brigade.

[zonmoy]

Some information on Dominionism can be found here:The Despoiling of America (http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm)

Is there any way we can possibly stop these fanatics before they drag our country into their madness.

[rickP]

I've always wanted to be able to use that word other than to impress someone with a long word.

According to dictionary.com:

opposition to the belief that there should no longer be an official church in a country

That would make me a disestablishmentarianist.

Positively, I guess you could call them establishmentarianists.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

From the Express-Times (PA) (http://www.pennlive.com/letters/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1098781511139130.xml)
Dominion theology totalitarian scheme

Earlier this week Pat Robertson's legal mouthpiece Jay Sekulow explained the animus behind Christian conservatives' political antics. According to Sekulow, Christians have a "cultural mandate" to control society. This mandate supposedly dates back to the Book of Genesis when God issued the command to take dominion over the earth; hence the name dominion theology. It was obvious that Sekulow wasn't too versed on the details of this idiotic doctrine (he admitted he's no theologian) so I'll fill in gaps.

Dominion theologians trace their movement to Cornelius Van Til, who came up with an unorthodox method of Christian apologetics. Using a Calvinist premise, Van Til taught that there is no moral common ground between Christians and nonbelievers. Another theologian, Rousas Rushdoony, later took Van Til's premise to its logical conclusion -- that because of this infinite moral divide the Christian inherits a divine right to rule over everyone else. The fact that the command to take dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29) was given to Adam four millennia before the Church even existed doesn't stop God's bullies from using it as a ready-made excuse to ram a theocratic nightmare down our throats. Two weeks earlier dominion preacher Rod Parsley said it all when he said: "It's not our job to fit in, it's our job to take over."

Anyone who believes that he or she has a divine right to rule over even one other human being is a raving psychotic who can justify any atrocity in God's name. Since divine lordship is the systematic theology behind the Christian dominion movement, there is no moral or intellectual dishonesty in treating it as a Nazi-style totalitarian scheme in political discourse.

<Author's Name Edited>"JVG"
Darby's meme is spreading. The "Dominionist" label is being used by others.

[Toto]

I tried to track down that Sekulow quote. I found this on the AU site (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5849&abbr=cs_) from 2000:

Robertson's top lawyer, Jay Sekulow, sounded a militant note at the NRB convention. Speaking to the public policy breakfast Feb. 7, the American Center for Law and Justice counsel said Christians are compelled by Scripture to get involved with politics.

Quoting Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper (http://www.kuyper.org/kuyper/), Sekulow said, "There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not say, 'This is mine; this belongs to me.' We have a cultural mandate."

Continued Sekulow, "Jesus demands every aspect of our creation, every aspect of our culture. None of it is without his control and authority."

Sekulow's call to action was countered at the breakfast by conservative columnist Cal Thomas. In a rare NRB acknowledgment of dissent among Christians about the relationship between politics and faith, Thomas was allowed to defend his view that overemphasis on political activity by evangelicals has hurt the spread of the Gospel. Thomas and Michigan pastor Ed Dobson (no relation to James Dobson) last year wrote a controversial book, Blinded by Might, that made the same point.

"When the church aligns itself with a political party," Thomas told the NRB, "it isn't the state that's corrupted, it's the church."

Charging that conservative churches have become "an appendage of the Republican Party," Thomas warned, "Too many of us give lip service to the Gospel while spending most of our energies on politics."

The columnist said voting Republican is no assurance of conservative policies or morality, noting that Earl Warren and other liberal Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents. He reminded the crowd that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich "kept the Contract with America, but sadly violated contracts with two wives and now consorts openly with a woman to whom he is not married."

Thomas even challenged the widely held Religious Right view that America was founded as a Christian nation. "What does history really say about our roots?" he asked. "Were our founders mostly saved men who were followers of Jesus Christ? A few were. But many were deists, free thinkers and quite a few, including George Washington, were Masons. Only 10 percent of the populace attended church at the time of the American Revolution."

The 2000 conference is reported here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_3_11/ai_61402621):

One of my favorite theologians, Abraham Kuyper, was also a Prime Minister. He founded a university and edited a newspaper, and he said, "There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, `This is mine, this belongs to me.'"

We have a cultural mandate. It's not that Kuyper or today's religious followers of politics are "blinded by might," as Cal's book title puts it. They are simply taking their cultural mandate seriously. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor. Part of that love of neighbor is being engaged in these political issues.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

From the October 29, 2004 Atheist News Service letter:
For those readers who are only recently being introduced to Dominionism, Katherine Yurica is one of the best known Dominionist watchers. Dominionism knows no political party boundaries, but of course with the Republicans having the edge in power now, the spotlight tends to point to those. Don't be fooled into thinking that Dominionists are not or cannot be Democratics, too. For example, the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (a program Mr. Kerry has promised to enhance) is headed by a Democrat - Jim Towey. If Mr. Kerry becomes president, the Dominionists won't be eradicated - The fight remains the same.
You can check out Katherine Yurica's site here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/index.html

In the story featured at the top of today's Yurica Report, the word "dominionists" is used often.

[Shake]

If Mr. Kerry becomes president, the Dominionists won't be eradicated - The fight remains the same.
Larry seems to keep making this point. I understand that in areas such as this Kerry may be less than ideal, but he's a far cry better than Dubya. I think a Kerry administration will be more conducive to good changes happening.

[Toto]

Darby is insane if he thinks Kerry and Bush are remotely the same on church state issues.

Kerry supports church state separation. Bush is prepared to appoint Supreme Court justices who will eliminate it in theory and in practice.

Of course Kerry is going to say that he supports faith based initiatives. But he doesn't support govenment paid proselyzing or allowing religious based employment discrimination.

It is furthermore very misleading to refer to everyone Darby doesn't like as a Dominionist. Not all (in fact, not many) of the anti-CSS faction adopt the full Dominionist platform of a return to Biblical Law, or the divine right of Christians to rule.