Friday, June 01, 2012

Kathy Shaidle discovers dominionism

{Posted at Bene Diction Blogs On Aug 20, 2011] I, personally, am a fan of famed blogger Kathy Shaidle, as she knows, so I am surprised to read that she thinks that she had never heard of dominionism until only recently. If Kathy puts her mind to it, I am sure that she will think back and recall lots of talk, during her religious columnist days, that "Christians are trying to take over." "Dominionism", I would say, is a shorthand way, of talking about this trend. In recent years, I would say, a subset of Christianity has come up with a theology to the effect that "we have to take over so that Jesus may come back." The formal term for this is "dominion theology". "Dominionism" has come to be a brief way of referencing this. How strong and influential and dangerous this "dominionist" subset is in Christianity, is certainly open to debate. That it exists, though, is a fact. Although I retain my very conservative poltics. I would nevertheless see "domionism" as perhaps increasingly prominent. I would also say that some Canadians-or ex-Canadians--in the public eye, certainly talk and act like they are dominionists and that is of newsworthy interest. Both Bene D and I have been reporting on that for quite some time now, as BDBO readers know. Given that Kathy Shaidle has condemned people for ignoring what she sees as "the stories behind the stories", Kathy's stance is puzzling. If a problem is that important issues are ignored, the answer is not "This should be ignored because I say it should be ignored." Rather, if you are a blogger, just don't talk about that subject. But, I would say that right and left leaning reporters and bloggers should be discussing the issue. I would say that if most conservatives think that "dominionism" is a chimera, they should do the rest of us a favour and say why. Let "iron sharpen iron". Kathy writes: "Lefty pundits are convinced that “Dominionism” is a thing, and you will now officially never hear the end of it." So, I am guessing, she thinks we should "hear the end of it." Why? I may not wind up agreeing with Kathy, but I'd like to know what she thinks. Why mention this? Well, I appreciate Kathy's honesty. But, as she is someone who regularly makes fun of journalists for making errors or ignoring stories she thinks are significant ("Journalists: your moral and intellectual superiors!!"), it would be much better for Kathy to have a go at explaining why "dominionism" is not really worth making note of, in her opinion. It would be a show of respect to the "other side" to offer a rebuttal. If other conservatives think "domionists" are harmless, if not cuddly and adorable, I'd like to hear the reasons why they think that way. Even if I may disagree.