"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."
At the time O'Donnell made this statement I, personally didn't really care. I mean, it was Rosie O'Donnell, who really cares what she thinks about Christians?
Rosie O'Donnell is known for her leftist views, no big surprise there and what with O'Donnell being a lesbian, many gay Americans are spiteful of Christians, so is Rosie O'Donnell. After all, many Christians challenge the practice of homosexuality as sinful, abnormal behavior. This fact doesn't sit well with a large portion of the gay population in America. No one likes to be told that what they do is wrong, especially when it is something they have no intention of giving up and are in the business of promoting as just another normal, healthy alternative lifestyle. People simply like to be approved and have their actions approved by other people. Even anarchists are anarchists for effect, they simply seek approval from other anarchists.
If Rosie O'Donnell lived in vacuum, I wouldn't really care what she says but the fact is she shares this view of Christians with other people and other people are thinking the things to which she gives voice.
For instance, recently on Curbstone Critic, John Stone had this to say:
"There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword."
Later, when I asked Stone:
"Is there a large percentage of the Christian population who you would consider to be "dominionists?""
"What do you consider to be indicative of "Dominionism?" Clearly not all Christians are "Dominionists," so which Christians are? "
"Last I heard the crazies were about 25 % of America."
and referred me to this Wikipedia article on Dominionism. To quote it:
"The dominionist interpretation sees adherents as heeding a command from God to all humankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God. The terminology of dominionism, and the broad concept of the trend described by critics, has been taken from the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but anti-Dominionist critics commonly point to this passage as a paradigm that influences Christian attitudes of Western domination over the Earth and everything in it."
Wikipedia is correct in stating that "Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth," but the anti-Dominionist critics don't allow that fact to deter them in their slander of Christians.
It is clear from the Wikipedia article that those who are fear mongering about Christians wanting to set up a theocracy and force the entire world to believe in the Bible by the sword believe that Christians who voted for George W. Bush are of necessity "Dominionists," whether they realize it or not. I think it is a safe bet to assume that most people would identify Christians who voted for Bush as the "Christian Right" or "conservative Christians":
I find it interesting that the term is "most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda." It is not used to describe politically active progressive Christians with a specific agenda. What would be the difference? If politically active Christians who are seeking a specific agenda are "Dominionists" there are plenty of progressive Christian "Dominionists," as well.
"Dominionism...seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs.
It is most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians with a specific agenda. The term is rarely used as a self-description; many feel it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to critics of the Christian Right.
The term emerged in relation to the Christian Right in the mid-1990s, but became more widely known due in large part to the U.S. presidential election, 2004 where the media attributed Republican wins to Evangelical voters in Red states who voted for "moral values". "
I do appreciate the link provided, a close reading garners this:
"Sara Diamond warns, however, that while dominionism has influenced the Christian Right, liberals too often use hyperbolic language to describe the activities and goals of the Christian Right.
The term "Dominionism" - with its close affiliation with notions of theocracy - can be used pejoratively to inaccurately describes the philosophical underpinnings of some individuals who identify themselves with the Christian Right. Very few of these see the Christian Right as an eschatological political movement designed to usher in the Kingdom of God; for them, the Christian Right articulates the traditional cultural critiques of paleoconservatives in the context of a worldview informed by orthodox Christian teaching. Moreover, many policies endorsed by the Christian Right contradict Dominionist notions. For example, the avid support of school vouchers by the Christian Right could lead to greater plurality in educational institutions, rather than a monolithic education system shaped by Dominionist ideas"
Using the term "radical Christianity" and comparing it to "radical Islam," as in the case of Rosie O'Donnell and claiming that "There is really not much difference between the Muslims that want to convert all of us by the sword, and the crazy Xtian Dominionist Americans who want to convert everyone by the sword," as in the case of Stone is used far too often to describe the "Christian Right."
When I asked Stone:
"Do you include the growing population of Progressive Christians among those Dominionists since they are actively trying to link Progressive politics with Christian values?"
"The Progressives in the Church are less well known, I link Mainstream Baptist in the sidebar. I just heard of a minister of a megachurch who lost his congregation because he was interested in things like poverty and peace, rather than abortion and gays."
He dodged answering the question, as is a particularly prevalent liberal reaction when they are queried in depth about their beliefs and don't wish to face their own hypocrisy. But please, if the criteria for being a "Dominionist" is a politically active Christian with a specific agenda, then progressive Christians would qualify as "Dominionists" as well, right?
On Dec. 2, The Progressive Daily Beacon Opinion Piece, written by A. Alexander, "They are the Christian Taliban - The Christiban", Alexander writes:
"Still not convinced that today's Republican "Christians" are in the same league as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan? In a moment you will be able to decide for yourself whether or not James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, and other so-called Christian leaders are any less dangerous than the Imams and Ayatollahs preaching and practicing radical versions of Islam."
The author, A. Alexander, suggests because some Christian leaders wish to deny Keith Ellison's request that he hold the Quran when he is sworn into office in January rather than the Bible that they are seeking to go against this James Madison precident:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" - Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731"
I don't know that I mind Ellison using the Quran when he's sworn in but if he doesn't, if he's required to place his hand on the Bible like everyone else does how the heck does that "establish a religion," "enforce the legal observation of it by law," or compel anyone to worship God in any manner?" Further, the whole premise that somehow this translates into ANY Christian becoming more of a threat to America than Islamo-fascists who want to enforce Sharia law across the entire world is just the most ridiculous premise I've heard recently. It certainly IS a "fear" tactic and an attack on a religion which, has shown no tangible indication of forcing itself on anyone by the sword. Why, they haven't even crossed Madison's lines as the author tried to suggest.
I would have to say that I believe a denial of Ellison being allowed to hold a Quran rather than a Bible goes against the spirit of historic freedom of religion in America but it is arguable that by wishing to hold him to being sworn in with his hand on the Bible, as has historically been done, somehow compels Ellison to worship a Christian God or establishes a religion to which Ellison must conform and, it is certainly arguable and quite ridiculous that it makes Christians comparable to the Taliban or equally as threatening to American life and liberty as is Islamo-fascism.
As far as I know, Rosie O'Donnell, John Stone or A. Alexander are not progressive Christians but it is and always has been interesting to me that some of the most vocal of critics of conservative Christianity have been progressive Christians.
There are progressive Christian blogs which I used to frequent and still occasionally visit in which the writers do little other than demonize and belittle conservative Christians for the very actions which they are currently promoting among their own flock. I have no problem with progressive Christians being politically active, as a matter of fact I believe that God admonishes the Christian, in his Word, to take an active role in government and politics. For that reason I would actually encourage progressive Christians to be outspoken in policy matters to bring them more in line with what they feel God would approve. Where I have a problem is them demonizing, belittling and libelously misrepresenting the majority of conservative Christians, their own brothers and sisters in Christ for doing what they, themselves, are doing. This is a sad situation for spiritual reasons.
In regards to others who use this moniker to bash conservative Christians, they too show their hypocrisy in that their complaints are exclusively leveled at conservative Christians, I suspect because they disagree politically with the actions of conservative Christians. They have nothing but accolades for progressive or emergent Christians, I suspect because they agree politically with the actions of progressive Christians.
Bottom line, this "Dominionism" talk is mostly a bunch of hogwash and those engaging in it are hypocritical at best and just outright ridiculous in their claims that Christians are threatening theocracy and are forcing their religion on anyone "by the sword."
By the way, I just named the post "Progressive Christian Dominionists" to show progressive Christians how it feels to be labeled as such. :)