Another Run at the "Dominionism" Meme

In my last post, I rejected the contention by Michelle Goldberg and others that evangelical leaders such as Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are significantly influenced by the aims of the tiny Christian Reconstructionism movement.  I tried to make the point that CR has a negligible political influence on evangelicals and that it is not honest to view evangelical office holders and candidates in the light of CR’s aims.  The entire thing, I think, is a tar baby sort of trap in which evangelicals are supposed to come out of their corner talking very seriously about Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism and giving legitimacy to those who have tried to raise it as an issue.

There is a simpler way to get at this thing.  I’ll go ahead and concede to Michelle Goldberg and Ryan Lizza that they are correct in their assumption that it is nervous-making to have someone with different ideas and values than one’s own running for political office.  This raises the spectre of having that person gain power and perhaps make policies with which one would disagree.  But the simple truth is that we are all in this position all the time.

The University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock once noted that he had some concerns about the Christian Coalition gaining political power.  He quickly added that he would be equally concerned about any group with an ideological agenda (such as certain types of feminists or environmentalists) gaining power.  The simple fact is that power is a feature of politics and it is unpleasant to lose and have someone else use power to impose upon you.  This is very much the situation many have been through in the past two years.  A great many people feel that a nationalized health care system would have disastrous effects upon our society.  Nevertheless, they have had to suffer through it because the side that wanted to enact such legislation won the election convincingly.

And here’s the thing . . . It doesn’t matter what Barack Obama’s motive was in pushing for national health care.  It doesn’t matter if he had a religious conviction, a secular principle, a sentimental attachment to the idea, or a desire to be the first Democrat to ever achieve such a thing.  He gained power through politics and enacted his agenda.

There is no difference in anything Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or any other American officeholder might do.  Indeed, the likelihood is great that any laws they might enact would be far less intrusive than one mandating that every American purchase health insurance.

 

Comments

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

I agree about obtrusiveness. But in fairness, I would note that a law banning most or all abortions would be viewed as very "obtrusive" by people who think the fetus has no rights and they have the right to do anything they want with one.

Of course, slaveholders viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as obtrusive, too, I'm sure.

[Neil Gussman]

I would have to agree with Mr. Harmon that many other things Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann support could be quite intrusive. Just in the area of science and education they both think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools and among the many results of the Dover trial, it made very clear that only a few with specialized knowledge see any difference between Young Earth Creationism and ID. Science is at the heart of all the technology that has grown our economy in the last century. Putting Creationism on an equal footing with real science would demolish our already lame science education and ruin more of our economic future.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Neil: Please read "High School Teachers and Evolution" above for a fine, if brief, essay on the topic of putting Creationism on an equal footing with 'real science'....

The Author of Everything There Is has some input to the discussion, you know.