Wednesday, May 29, 2019


I thought that Christian Dominionism had died.  According to this article in Texas Monthly, no it just moved to Texas.   I am not impressed.  He distinguishes "soft" Dominionism from "hard" Dominionism.  The "hard" form is a pretty crazy idea that has no danger of ever being supported by any significant fraction of evangelicals much less voters in general, and more important, allowed by our rulers.

What he calls "soft" Dominionism is nothing of the sort:
While soft dominionists do not advocate replacing the Constitution with biblical law, they do believe that Christians need to regain the control over political and cultural institutions that they (supposedly) lost after the Founding period.
Yes, the Framers believed that Christianity was at the core of the Republic and the laws they passed and which remained in effect until the 1960s reflected that:
 In 2014, Patrick said that elected officials must look to Scripture when they make policy, “because every problem we have in America has a solution in the Bible.” (Where the Bible addresses problems like greenhouse gas emissions or cybersecurity, I’m at a loss to explain, even with 20 years of biblical study behind me.) His call for a “biblically-based” policy mindset “doesn’t mean we want a theocracy,” he insisted. “But it does mean we can’t walk away from what we believe.” For Patrick, not “walking away” seems to mean basing policy on his own religious beliefs — as he showed when he opposed same-sex marriage on biblical grounds.  
Of course not.  Christians are required to walk away from their beliefs, but no other group needs to do so.  Greenhouse gases are not a problem; the Sun is.  But good look regulating that.
The dominionist goal of having Christianity shape law and policy amounts to the very governmental establishment of religion that the First Amendment explicitly prohibits. It would also appear to violate the Texas Bill of Rights, which states that “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.” 
Except the establishment of religion clause was intended to prevent any denomination from gaining influence and supremacy over the others,  See Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 3:723-8 (using images because  downloading text does not work the way it used to):

No comments:

Post a Comment