In “Dangerous Influences: The New Yorker, Michele Bachmann, and Me” (Human Events, August 12, 2011), philosopher Nancy Pearcey muses on how Michele Bachmann (that ID-friendly US Prez hopeful) came to be associated with a “political movement” Bachmann had probably never heard of.
[Note: Also ID-friendly Perry to declare tomorrow in South Carolina – breaks Beltway rules ]
Pearcey’s writings, especially Total Truth, were an influence on Bachmann, and Pearcey – who had never heard of the supposed “Dominionist” movement herself – was associated with it by a New Yorker writer in a smear job on Bachmann.
So was her long-deceased mentor, Francis Schaeffer. (momentary consternation … Google … Google …)
… there is a little-known group of Christians who claim the term, though they are typically called Reconstructionists. Apparently it was sociologist Sara Diamond who expanded Dominionism into a general term of abuse, based on a passage in Genesis where God tells humans to exercise “dominion” over the earth.
By that definition, anyone who respects Genesis as Scripture would be a Dominionist—including Jews and Catholics, as well as Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals. And not a few of the American Founders.
So, it appears,
“Dominionist” is the new “Fundamentalist”—the preferred term of abuse, intended to arouse fear and contempt, and downgrade the status of targeted groups of people.
[Ryan] Lizza labeled the two of us Dominionists. Dozens of liberal websites have picked up the story and repeated the charge.
Smears succeed because people want their vulgar hatreds confirmed more than they want to know – or want anyone else to know – what is happening. Ask Frank Beckwith, around whom a fictional scenario was built by the Darwin lobby.
What’s fairly new here, however, is that the smear is not just false, every element is fiction.
Follow UD News at Twitter!