Dominionists in the United States

[Dark Lightning]

We need at least 8 years of reason in the government to at least stop the damage and potentially reverse it. Hegseth is one of those who belongs in jail.

[billy rubin]

yes.

you cannot go wrong overestimating the stupid vindictiveness of the american voting public.

[Dark Lightning]

Yup. I saw an article somewhere (I rove a lot of the internet, but that article may have been posted here previously) that made the claim that eventually the polity pushes back against the right wing crap like the KKK and the conflict in Viet Nam. I really do think that the USA is messed up in a lot of ways. Not sure where to place the blame, but it isn't the "Jews shooting space lasers at the earth to start massive fires", if you get my drift.

[Recusant]

JD Vance, who might well become president between now and 2028, isn't a Dominionist per se, but he's definitely aligned with that belief.

I'm not sure if you've noticed – I mean, there are just so many damn distractions these days – but our Vice President JD Vance is a crazed religious zealot untethered from reality.

This is not terribly reassuring considering that his boss is even more deranged than he is.

Maybe Vance is just trying to continue peddling his memoir, "Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith" that came out in June. But in a visit with a Christian podcaster named Bryce Crawford on Monday, he theorized that there's "some really, really weird spiritual dark energy" around the use to Artificial Intelligence.

In that same interview, Vance said he was unsure if we were in "end times" but noted that there were some things "about the world" that would render him "not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us."

[. . .]

Now let's remember that we theoretically live in a country where the separation of church and state remains the law of the land. In that same Monday podcast interview, he explained his approach to governing in explicitly providential terms. He said that Christians are commanded to try to make the world the way God wants it to be and said he's concentrating on doing "as much of God's work as possible."

I don't know about you, but I've always found that when someone invokes God often in their declarations, you can usually count on it being a substitute for the pronoun "me" or "I." It's also a simplistic but effective way to exert control over people, particularly those who are already extremely devout.

When the podcast discussion turned to whether Vance's efforts on behalf of God could actually contribute to the apocalypse, his basic answer was that he is doing on behalf of God leads to end times, that's OK, because those end times will eventually happen anyway.

How very reassuring.

This man, who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, defends white supremacists and white nationalists over his brown-skinned wife and children, yet claims to be more godly than thou. Like so many pious extremists, he has no character. It's all just about using religion as a means to control and dominate.

This is all to confirm that the Vice President of the United States is very publicly discussing his exercise of worldly responsibility within an apocalyptic theological framework. If it came down to it, and he had his hand on the nuclear button, he might well push it since it would only serve to confirm his "end times" prediction.

[source]

[billy rubin]

dont forget vance thinks demons are visiting us in the form of space aliens

[Recusant]

Bonnie Kristian, the deputy editor of Christianity Today, has a book out which attempts to defend white evangelicals in the US. A few days ago I read an interview with her in which she laid out her basic thesis: we shouldn't condemn the entire group just because a lot of them have shitty beliefs and support fascist-wannabes like Trump and Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House who is openly a Dominionist). Many of those same folks give to charities and are kind to their neighbors. Not her words of course, but my characterization. In her efforts to promote her book she also wrote a piece for The Washington Post advancing the same argument. As you might have assumed, I wasn't impressed. 

It was good to read a well-reasoned reply to Kristian's argument by Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist.

Kristian cites a steep decline in how Democrats view Christian fundamentalists. In 2008, according to one study, 52.8% of Democrats "had a positive view of Christian fundamentalists." By 2024, that number had dropped to 32.2%.

But declining approval isn't proof of irrational bigotry, especially when that decline coincides with white evangelicals' overwhelming support for Trump, and an aggressive campaign to weaponize the government against LGBTQ people, immigrants, religious minorities, people who need abortions, and public schools.

When you do unpopular things, don't be surprised when your popularity fades.

[. . .]

We can't have "civic friendship" with people who don't think Muslims, LGBTQ people, immigrants, atheists, and women should have the same rights they do.

Who's to blame for that? It's not Christianity as a whole or every individual evangelical. It's the white evangelical political bloc—the constituency that has supplied votes, money, theological cover, and institutional support for authoritarianism and Christian nationalism.

So if "cancer" is too inflammatory, choose another word. Call it a decades-long moral failure. Whatever the label, the movement has spread through our government, made life worse for vulnerable Americans, and prioritized loyalty to the Republican Party over every principle its members claim to hold sacred.

Objecting to the "cancer" metaphor does nothing to treat the underlying disease.

In a different interview, Kristian complained that attention-seeking blowhards like Pastor Greg Locke are constantly presented as representative of white evangelical pastors. It's true that Locke doesn't represent every pastor. But that raises a more important question: Who does represent white evangelical power?

Franklin Graham has influence. Pete Hegseth has power. Paula White-Cain advises Trump. Mike Johnson is Speaker of the House. Kristian can't dismiss every destructive leader as an unrepresentative anomaly while defining evangelicalism by the kindest and least powerful people in the pews. A movement should have to answer for the people it elevates, follows, funds, and repeatedly places in power.

Remember: MAGA allegiance remains perfectly acceptable in most white evangelical spaces. It rarely costs anyone their church membership, leadership positions, Christian media platforms, or the respect of their fellow Christians. That tolerance is a choice. If authoritarian cruelty isn't a deal-breaker, what the hell is?

Kristian is right to say individual white evangelicals shouldn't be reduced to a stereotype. There are white evangelicals who oppose Trump, defend LGBTQ people, welcome refugees, protect church-state separation, and reject their faith being used as a political weapon. They deserve to be recognized. We can work with them.

But that minority can't absolve the larger movement.

For three consecutive presidential elections, roughly 80% of white evangelical voters have backed Donald Trump. Their churches, institutions, media outlets, and celebrities have turned the GOP into a vehicle for Christian Nationalism. As a result, Americans are losing their rights, health care, safety, education, and freedom.

Kristian may want critics like me to see evangelicals as kind neighbors who stop by when you're sick rather than as caricatures like Locke. Fine. But white evangelical leaders should also be willing to see the immigrant taken from her family, the transgender child terrorized by right-wing lawmakers, the Muslim treated as an enemy by evangelists, the pregnant woman denied medical care, and the students forced to go to class under the shadow of a Ten Commandments poster. Those people aren't caricatures either.

[Continues . . .]