The things people say...

When discussing the Religious Right, especially with people who are not yet well-versed on the subject, it's important to communicate effectively; many commentators use inaccurate or unhelpful terminology.   

This was the topic of a recent correspondence between myself,  Frederick Clarkson, and others involved in Talk To Action.

Fred summarized the discussion. I agree with his assessments of the terms, which are listed below for your information, and possibly entertainment:

Problematic terms (from most to least)

Christer - “Sounds too bigoted for use in anything other than certain kinds of polemical writing.”

Wingnuts - Probably alright for singing to the choir, but it’s really just “cheap name calling.”

Theocons - An “obscure and ultimately meaningless construct[, l]ikely to confuse and distort useful conversation, serious journalism or persuasive politics.”

Dominionists - A “good word, but...in need of some serious definition--it is fast on the road to becoming more of an epithet instead of a reasonably descriptive, resonant and valuable term.”

Intolerant - A “useful word with a...history...in efforts” towards inter-religious and inter-racial understanding.

Recommended terms (from most to least)

Equality - A la Stephen Carter, the term "equality" might be preferred, because “toleration” is the language of power; it suggests that “tolerance is the luxury of the majority and can be withdrawn.”

Religious equality vs. religious / Christian supremacism - These are useful terms.

Christianist - “could be of some utility.”

Another participant of the discussion, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, argues against the terms “Radical Religious Right” and “Religious Political Extremists.” He states that there’s nothing wrong with "Religious Right" or "Christian Right;" but, that the problem is the words "radical" and "extremist" tossed in as a label on top. The words "extremist" and "radical" are “difficult to justify when talking about people who are members of Congress and our neighbors and relatives.

He also warns against the term "Extreme Right," which for most people (and most scholars) means fascists and neo-Nazis. He thinks that "Far right" can be used sparingly, when it is descriptive.

Berlet also likes the terms “Religious Supremacist” or “Christian Supremacist,” and further recommends the terms “bullying” and its variants.

Comments

[Samia]

As I understand it, "dominionist" refers to a very specific sub-group holding particular beliefs. As I also understand, based on research, those who hold this belief have actively chosen to avoid this term in referring to themselves, as the beliefs are too fringey for the more mainstream evangelicals.

How should we actively and effectively identify this particular subgroup?

[IseFire]

Samia,
My understanding:
"those who hold this belief have actively chosen to avoid this term in referring to themselves"

Yes, I think that's probably true for most the most part

"the beliefs are too fringey for the more mainstream evangelicals."

That's a fair assessment, yes; but...

"a very specific sub-group holding particular beliefs"

This I'm not as sure about. I've yet to find a water-tight definition of dominionism, and I'm not sure that there's a established *set* of beliefs, though certainly some beliefs are common among all dominionists.

But what I would like to stress is that dominionist thought trickles down, so to speak, and is influencing wider evangelical and traditionalist mainline cultures.

I sometimes think of it this way:
When I was growing up in the fundamentalist and conservative evangelical subcultures in Iowa (with more experience with the latter), I would often hear the call to "Claim the country for Christ," or words to that effect.

I think that while within evangelicalism such a call once meant to convert ones fellow countrymen, these days I think the exact same words are said from many of the exact same pulpits as 20 years ago, but now the words mean to wage spiriual and political warfare against perceived enemies and influences, to secure and control positions (judgships, etc.) and officials in order to make the country one that is run by Christians. It's politics as a sort of evangelism, at the end of the day, it's still politics.

Not sure if I'm making any sense.

[Sunfell]

Interesting discussion. Choosing and using language correctly is critical- especially in the very slippery area of religious understanding. When I created my Live Journal community, I deliberately refrained from using "evangelical" or "fundementalist" as descriptors because they are very specific belief sets, and not all evangelicals or fundementalists believe in the "Christianity Uber Alles" mindset of the dominionists.

I use that word when referring to this particular set of beliefs because "Christocrats" (which Pastor Parsley has openly used) isn't yet widespread, and dominionism is exactly the goal that this group wants to achieve.

There's an excellent Wikipedia definition of Dominionism as a sect, and where it fits in with other extreme fringe groups here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

But "Religious Supermacist" "Christian Nationalist" or even "Christocrat" might work.

"Christianist" is interesting- and possibly volatile- because it suggests a radical and possible destructive sect within the mainstream of the faith. I've seen "Islamist" used the same way- to distinguish the extremists and Wahabbis and Taliban from the mainstream.

And "Christianist" also suggests the spiritual and cultural warfare that they love to wage on all non-believers. And it also brings to mind their ultimate goal- to legislate their faith in order to achieve their particularly toxic 'dominion' over all peoples.

Sunfell

[bernie]

"dominionism" described here

http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/glossary/glossary.htm

[soma111]

I've always liked 'god-botherers'.