Political Crossfire Forums

[Pelagius]

Code: In an impressive piece of lucid journalism, Salon.com reporter Goldberg dives into the religious right and sorts out the history and networks of what to most liberals is an inscrutable parallel universe. She deconstructs "dominion theology," the prevalent evangelical assertion that Christians have a "responsibility to take over every aspect of society." Goldberg makes no attempt to hide her own partisanship, calling herself a "secular Jew and ardent urbanite" who wrote the book because she "was terrified by America's increasing hostility to... cosmopolitan values." This carefully researched and riveting treatise will hardly allay its audience's fears, however; secular liberals and mainstream believers alike will find Goldberg's descriptions of today's culture wars deeply disturbing. She traces the deep financial and ideological ties between fundamentalist Christians and the Republican Party, and discloses the dangers she believes are inherent to the Bush administration's faith-based social services initiative. Other chapters follow inflammatory political tactics on wedge issues like gay rights, evolution and sex education. Significantly, her conclusions do not come off as hysterical or shrill. Even while pointing to stark parallels between fascism and the language of the religious right, Goldberg's vision of America's future is measured and realistic. Her book is a potent wakeup call to pluralists in the coming showdown with Christian nationalists.




This looks like an interesting read - but then I'm inclined to like anything that exposes certain subgroups of radical right wing 'christianity'.

[Addison]

Yes, certain sub-groups. Just keep from generalizations. Other than that, interesting--but I see no room for response to this. Did you want our thoughts, opinions, arguments, agreement?

[Pelagius]

Addison wrote: Yes, certain sub-groups. Just keep from generalizations. Other than that, interesting--but I see no room for response to this. Did you want our thoughts, opinions, arguments, agreement?

Posted as a public service. If people choose to comment, deride, praise or ignore, that's up to them.

[cap'n queasy]

Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

[DarkMerlin]

cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

It's still scary as hell.

[Saf]

cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent.
Nor was anyone suggesting otherwise. Paranoid much? :-o

[cap'n queasy]

Saf wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent.
Nor was anyone suggesting otherwise. Paranoid much? :-o

The OP, or rather his article suggested it.
Quote: She deconstructs "dominion theology," the prevalent evangelical assertion that Christians have a "responsibility to take over every aspect of society."

I didn't just say that out of the blue. :lol: I responded in answer to a suppostion that was not factual.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

[eynon]

connermt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

yeah generally accepted or favored, as in a majority view.....as an Evangelical I don't subscribe to it....

[cap'n queasy]

connermt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

A prevalent opinion is the predominant or prevailing opinion.

Dominionism is not the prevelant Christian viewpoint.

[eynon]

cap'n queasy wrote: connermt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

A prevalent opinion is the predominant or prevailing opinion.

Dominionism is not the prevelant Christian viewpoint.

Most of the Evangelicals on this forum have strong Libertarian leanings, a political philosphy that runs counter to Nationalism.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: connermt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

A prevalent opinion is the predominant or prevailing opinion.

Dominionism is not the prevelant Christian viewpoint.

Quote: Dominionism is not the prevelant Christian viewpoint.
Maybe so
Quote: A prevalent opinion is the predominant or prevailing opinion.
Not necessarily

[connermt]

Eynon81 wrote: connermt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Dominion theology is not prevalent. It is a minority view.

Being prevalent doesn't have anything to do with minority or majority, just that it is generally accepted &/or favored.

yeah generally accepted or favored, as in a majority view.....as an Evangelical I don't subscribe to it....

Quote: as in a majority view.....

Again, not necessairly.

I don't see something as prevalent as always meaning majority. Prevalent can also mean a more 'well known' or understood idea or concept.

[cap'n queasy]

No. It is by definition the prevailing, or majority, view.

You're arguing "skematics" again. Badly at that.

[Free Thinkr]

The irony is that the book would be making an excellent point -were it arguing for Islamic nationalism.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: No. It is by definition the prevailing, or majority, view.

You're arguing "skematics" again. Badly at that.

Wrong as usual. The definition of prevalent: generally or widely accepted (nothing about minority or majority), practiced (ditto), or favored (ditto again); being in ascendancy (ascendancy = governing or controlling influence). Controlling influence CAN be a majority, but not always.
I suppose if you want to streeeetch the definition you could make it fit what you are saying, which you do all the time.

FYI: In case you reader weren't aware, Cap'n like to make fun of me because I used the wrong word a few posts ago. I was thinking semantics & typed "skematics" (probably due to my previous vocation I would guess)

Cap'n, 'you such a cut-up' :roll:

[Lee_p413]

Quote: Wrong as usual. The definition of prevalent: generally or widely accepted (nothing about minority or majority), practiced (ditto), or favored (ditto again); being in ascendancy (ascendancy = governing or controlling influence). Controlling influence CAN be a majority, but not always.

- It isn't generally or widely accepted, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely practiced, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely favored, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't in ascendancy, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.

So, now that we understand your definition of prevalent, we understand by that definition that "Dominion theology" is not a prevalent opinion, and therefore, we can stop arguing about it. Right?

[connermt]

Lee_p413 wrote: Quote: Wrong as usual. The definition of prevalent: generally or widely accepted (nothing about minority or majority), practiced (ditto), or favored (ditto again); being in ascendancy (ascendancy = governing or controlling influence). Controlling influence CAN be a majority, but not always.

- It isn't generally or widely accepted, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely practiced, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely favored, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't in ascendancy, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.

So, now that we understand your definition of prevalent, we understand by that definition that "Dominion theology" is not a prevalent opinion, and therefore, we can stop arguing about it. Right?

Yes please

[joe christian]

connermt wrote: Lee_p413 wrote: Quote: Wrong as usual. The definition of prevalent: generally or widely accepted (nothing about minority or majority), practiced (ditto), or favored (ditto again); being in ascendancy (ascendancy = governing or controlling influence). Controlling influence CAN be a majority, but not always.

- It isn't generally or widely accepted, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely practiced, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't generally or widely favored, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.
- It isn't in ascendancy, speaking in comparison to the rest of the world or even America alone.

So, now that we understand your definition of prevalent, we understand by that definition that "Dominion theology" is not a prevalent opinion, and therefore, we can stop arguing about it. Right?

Yes please
Having sorted all that out at last, what's wrong with claiming Judeo-Christian rights or affirming and establishing a Godly form of Judeo-Christian Nationalism in various countries throughout the world? I kind of like the concept considering the precarious situation most countries in the world are in today. What is the alternative? A network of spiritual progressives advocating a spiritual covenant with America?

www.spritualprogressives.org

[garyd]

It is also a minority that is all but non existant. The book remains little more than a glimpse into the usual paranoid leftist mindset in times when they find themselves falling from favor.