<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Reading list for those who are dominionism deniers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/</link>
	<description>A [retired] college psychology professor&#039;s observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 21:08:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jayhuck		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-94043</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jayhuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 21:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-94043</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The &quot;politics of NO&quot; goes beyond the vote to raise the debt ceiling.  But yes, Dominionism is a fine topic.  Onward!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;politics of NO&#8221; goes beyond the vote to raise the debt ceiling.  But yes, Dominionism is a fine topic.  Onward!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Blakeslee		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-94041</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Blakeslee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 21:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-94041</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Warren,
Carole makes a good point.
Dominionism is a great topic though, keep going.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren,<br />
Carole makes a good point.<br />
Dominionism is a great topic though, keep going.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Patrocles		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-91983</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrocles]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-91983</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Warren&#039;s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.
First, there&#039;s nothing wrong with being worried about dangerous aspects of Islam (or evangelicalism) and you might try to construct a concept under which to sum up all those dangerous aspects (&quot;islamism&quot;, &quot;dominionism&quot;).
But you mustn&#039;t confound concept and reality. In reality, there&#039;s always a CONTINUUM between extreme defensive and extreme aggressive policies, and religious or ideological movements are just FLOATING between the extremes forth and back.
A fault quite often made is, to fix one&#039;s attention on alleged token words. But &quot;Jihad&quot; doesn&#039;t mean that the speaker will join Al Quaeda, and &quot;dominion&quot; doesn&#039;t mean that he asks for the execution of gays. (&quot;Dominion&quot;, by the way, is the kingdom of God on earth, an idea much beloved by American Christians.)
Rushdoony was overcompensating the relative weakness of mid-20th century evangelicals, dreaming wild dreamsof power (like Isaiah in his time).. DeMar was a lot more pragmatic and realist, nowadays &quot;dominionists&quot; are much more assertive.. If I rely on Warren&#039;s quotes, DeMar asked basically for a limited government, which sets the denominations free to organize their lives along their own ideas. That&#039;s the same kind of policy that Catholics proclaim under the name of subsidiarism and that seculars or Jews proclaim under the name of communitarianism.
It CAN be used as kind of interstate on one party&#039;s way to total power. But mostly that happens, because people get the bleak view that neutrality of the state, pluralism and balance between conflicting ideological groups are IMPOSSIBLE. And we all have to change reality so that people don&#039;t get such bleak views at first.
(As for the execution of aborters, I think that Warren misinterprets DeMar: he doesn&#039;t impose a particular denominational dogma, but he appeals to the law of the land.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren&#8217;s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.<br />
First, there&#8217;s nothing wrong with being worried about dangerous aspects of Islam (or evangelicalism) and you might try to construct a concept under which to sum up all those dangerous aspects (&#8220;islamism&#8221;, &#8220;dominionism&#8221;).<br />
But you mustn&#8217;t confound concept and reality. In reality, there&#8217;s always a CONTINUUM between extreme defensive and extreme aggressive policies, and religious or ideological movements are just FLOATING between the extremes forth and back.<br />
A fault quite often made is, to fix one&#8217;s attention on alleged token words. But &#8220;Jihad&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean that the speaker will join Al Quaeda, and &#8220;dominion&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean that he asks for the execution of gays. (&#8220;Dominion&#8221;, by the way, is the kingdom of God on earth, an idea much beloved by American Christians.)<br />
Rushdoony was overcompensating the relative weakness of mid-20th century evangelicals, dreaming wild dreamsof power (like Isaiah in his time).. DeMar was a lot more pragmatic and realist, nowadays &#8220;dominionists&#8221; are much more assertive.. If I rely on Warren&#8217;s quotes, DeMar asked basically for a limited government, which sets the denominations free to organize their lives along their own ideas. That&#8217;s the same kind of policy that Catholics proclaim under the name of subsidiarism and that seculars or Jews proclaim under the name of communitarianism.<br />
It CAN be used as kind of interstate on one party&#8217;s way to total power. But mostly that happens, because people get the bleak view that neutrality of the state, pluralism and balance between conflicting ideological groups are IMPOSSIBLE. And we all have to change reality so that people don&#8217;t get such bleak views at first.<br />
(As for the execution of aborters, I think that Warren misinterprets DeMar: he doesn&#8217;t impose a particular denominational dogma, but he appeals to the law of the land.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jayhuck		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-91982</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jayhuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-91982</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Patrocles -
&lt;blockquote&gt;Warren&#039;s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Actually its within Dominionism that you find a phobia of Islam, but you do a good spin job ;)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrocles &#8211;</p>
<blockquote><p>Warren&#8217;s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually its within Dominionism that you find a phobia of Islam, but you do a good spin job 😉</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: carole		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-91979</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[carole]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 20:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-91979</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[From Politico:
&lt;blockquote&gt;By ALEX ISENSTADT &#124; 8/1/11 9:07 PM EDT
There were 161 members who voted against the deal to raise the debt ceiling &#8211; an unusual mix of mostly tea party-aligned freshmen and progressive stalwarts.
Among those who opposed the bill were conservative first-termers like New York Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador, Minnesota Rep. Chip Cravaack and Louisiana Rep. Jeff Landry, who said in a statement, &quot;I&#039;m sure by Washington standards, today&#039;s deal is a great accomplishment; but by American standards, it comes up short.&quot;
It&#039;s little surprise that South Carolina &#8211; a hotbed of tea party activism &#8211; was a center of opposition. The state&#039;s three freshmen House Republicans joined GOP Rep. Joe Wilson in casting no votes.
They were joined by several freshmen who&#039;ve distinguished themselves as fiercely anti-Washington figures. Among them were Florida Rep. Steve Southerland and Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a combative conservative who said the package &quot;spends too much and cuts too little.&quot;
Of those who voted No, 95 were Democrats &#8211; many of whom are liberals like Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, and Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who called the bill, &quot;the wrong medicine for a sick economy.&quot;
&quot;It is a fake solution to a phony crisis,&quot; said Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, another holdout. &quot;It is an attack on the principle of government of the people. All this in the name of fiscal accountability.&quot;
Nearly two-dozen were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including California Rep. Barbara Lee, Georgia Rep. John Lewis, and CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, who drew headlines for calling the bill a &quot;Satan sandwich.&quot; Nearly a dozen were members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Arizona Rep. Ed Pastor, New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, and Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes.
In some cases, those who opposed the package are looking to run for higher office, including GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana and Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, both of whom are running for Senate. Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, both of whom are considering running for Senate, also voted no.
One of the most noteworthy holdouts was Tom Latham, who also opposed last week&#039;s package proposed by his close friend and ally, House Speaker John Boehner. The Iowa Republican is facing a perilous post-redistricting path to reelection, facing an incumbent-vs.-incumbent race against Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell, who also voted no.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60454.html#ixzz1XExPEX6H
&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Politico:</p>
<blockquote><p>By ALEX ISENSTADT | 8/1/11 9:07 PM EDT<br />
There were 161 members who voted against the deal to raise the debt ceiling &#8211; an unusual mix of mostly tea party-aligned freshmen and progressive stalwarts.<br />
Among those who opposed the bill were conservative first-termers like New York Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador, Minnesota Rep. Chip Cravaack and Louisiana Rep. Jeff Landry, who said in a statement, &#8220;I&#8217;m sure by Washington standards, today&#8217;s deal is a great accomplishment; but by American standards, it comes up short.&#8221;<br />
It&#8217;s little surprise that South Carolina &#8211; a hotbed of tea party activism &#8211; was a center of opposition. The state&#8217;s three freshmen House Republicans joined GOP Rep. Joe Wilson in casting no votes.<br />
They were joined by several freshmen who&#8217;ve distinguished themselves as fiercely anti-Washington figures. Among them were Florida Rep. Steve Southerland and Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a combative conservative who said the package &#8220;spends too much and cuts too little.&#8221;<br />
Of those who voted No, 95 were Democrats &#8211; many of whom are liberals like Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, and Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who called the bill, &#8220;the wrong medicine for a sick economy.&#8221;<br />
&#8220;It is a fake solution to a phony crisis,&#8221; said Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, another holdout. &#8220;It is an attack on the principle of government of the people. All this in the name of fiscal accountability.&#8221;<br />
Nearly two-dozen were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including California Rep. Barbara Lee, Georgia Rep. John Lewis, and CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, who drew headlines for calling the bill a &#8220;Satan sandwich.&#8221; Nearly a dozen were members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Arizona Rep. Ed Pastor, New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, and Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes.<br />
In some cases, those who opposed the package are looking to run for higher office, including GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana and Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, both of whom are running for Senate. Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, both of whom are considering running for Senate, also voted no.<br />
One of the most noteworthy holdouts was Tom Latham, who also opposed last week&#8217;s package proposed by his close friend and ally, House Speaker John Boehner. The Iowa Republican is facing a perilous post-redistricting path to reelection, facing an incumbent-vs.-incumbent race against Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell, who also voted no.<br />
Read more: <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60454.html#ixzz1XExPEX6H" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60454.html#ixzz1XExPEX6H</a>
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-82249</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 18:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-82249</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[http://www.scribd.com/doc/27770861/Ruler-of-the-Nations-Gary-deMar is the link; sometimes it comes up and sometimes it doesn&#039;t. Hope it works for you the next time you try.. Maybe cut and paste the link into a browser...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27770861/Ruler-of-the-Nations-Gary-deMar" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.scribd.com/doc/27770861/Ruler-of-the-Nations-Gary-deMar</a> is the link; sometimes it comes up and sometimes it doesn&#8217;t. Hope it works for you the next time you try.. Maybe cut and paste the link into a browser&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-82243</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 18:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-82243</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[M. - In general, I agree that they are kooks and that any current politician who brings up a suggestion to make the Constitution second to Moses is signing his political death warrant. However, mischief can be made in lesser ways.
For instance, Rick Green is David barton&#039;s co-host on Wallbuilder&#039;s Live. He also ran for Judge in Texas. He lost narrowly but what if he had been elected? He believes the constitution&#039;s first amendment is for Christians. He thinks biblical law is the basis for US law. As a Judge, he might have some rulings which will allow him to rule based on his judicial philosophy. Maybe he is a dominionist lite.
The very conservative Republican tea partiers nearly shut the govt down because they did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Are they following DeMar&#039;s advice? The politics of NO?
Finally, I think it is disingenuous for Matt Barber and David French to say they don&#039;t know what dominionism is. Their reaction is reason enough to point out the obvious.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>M. &#8211; In general, I agree that they are kooks and that any current politician who brings up a suggestion to make the Constitution second to Moses is signing his political death warrant. However, mischief can be made in lesser ways.<br />
For instance, Rick Green is David barton&#8217;s co-host on Wallbuilder&#8217;s Live. He also ran for Judge in Texas. He lost narrowly but what if he had been elected? He believes the constitution&#8217;s first amendment is for Christians. He thinks biblical law is the basis for US law. As a Judge, he might have some rulings which will allow him to rule based on his judicial philosophy. Maybe he is a dominionist lite.<br />
The very conservative Republican tea partiers nearly shut the govt down because they did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Are they following DeMar&#8217;s advice? The politics of NO?<br />
Finally, I think it is disingenuous for Matt Barber and David French to say they don&#8217;t know what dominionism is. Their reaction is reason enough to point out the obvious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: M. Worrell		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-76329</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[M. Worrell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-76329</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Too much focus on this is like when people were obsessed with the most absurd aspects of Black Liberation theology and how all of that related to Obama&#039;s politics. None of this nonsense is going to come to pass, and any candidate who tries to bring it into the mainstream is going to get crushed... whether they try to do so before or after they are elected. Might we see a move back towards more traditional sexual values, etc.? Maybe, but that&#039;s a far cry from what these kooks what to do.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Too much focus on this is like when people were obsessed with the most absurd aspects of Black Liberation theology and how all of that related to Obama&#8217;s politics. None of this nonsense is going to come to pass, and any candidate who tries to bring it into the mainstream is going to get crushed&#8230; whether they try to do so before or after they are elected. Might we see a move back towards more traditional sexual values, etc.? Maybe, but that&#8217;s a far cry from what these kooks what to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: carole		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-74557</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[carole]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 17:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-74557</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Warren: &lt;blockquote&gt;The very conservative Republican tea partiers nearly shut the govt down because they did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Are they following DeMar&#039;s advice? The politics of NO?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I&#039;ve not followed this thread except to scan it, Warren, but I did see this statement of yours and was struck by it.   Forgive me, but I think you have gone off the deep end with this presumptive link.  All varieties of  the politically persuaded, including the most fiscally conservative of the House (who owed their elections last fall to promises of fiscal restraint and debt containment), to the most liberal  of the House and a few in-between the extremes voted &quot;No&quot; to the raising of the ceiling.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren: </p>
<blockquote><p>The very conservative Republican tea partiers nearly shut the govt down because they did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Are they following DeMar&#8217;s advice? The politics of NO?</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ve not followed this thread except to scan it, Warren, but I did see this statement of yours and was struck by it.   Forgive me, but I think you have gone off the deep end with this presumptive link.  All varieties of  the politically persuaded, including the most fiscally conservative of the House (who owed their elections last fall to promises of fiscal restraint and debt containment), to the most liberal  of the House and a few in-between the extremes voted &#8220;No&#8221; to the raising of the ceiling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jayhuck		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/09/06/reading-list-for-those-who-are-dominionism-deniers/#comment-52815</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jayhuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wthrockmorton.com/?p=10089#comment-52815</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Patrocles -
&lt;blockquote&gt;Warren’s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Actually its within Dominionism that you find a phobia of Islam, but you do a good spin job ;)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrocles &#8211;</p>
<blockquote><p>Warren’s dominion-phobia shows a lot of parallels to the islamophobia of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller et alii.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually its within Dominionism that you find a phobia of Islam, but you do a good spin job 😉</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
