reply to post by ssj2gohan83
Well, I would hope that you could continue... this is a point that really needs to be addressed.
From your first link
Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent
franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity”.
I like the last part, as it appears to me to be fairly accurate: "claiming a foundation in Christianity."
Anyone is free to claim any
religion they like in this country, whether they obey the tenets of that religion or not. I could walk around saying I am a "Methopresbybaptist" if
I wanted to. But what one claims is not the same as what one does.
I make no bones about the fact I claim to be a practicing Christian. I follow the examples set forth by our Lord Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. I may
fail at areas, but I do try. Now, in my reading of the Bible, the dominion granted by God over the earth applied to all humans
, not to
Christians only. There weren't any Christians even in existence at that time, for how does one follow someone who has not yet been born? More
importantly as it applies to politics, I follow Jesus' example when he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is
God's." In other words, Jesus was unconcerned about the politics of the time, just as I am spiritually unconcerned about politics. My only concern
about politics is secular and moral.
In this case, I believe all citizens not hampered legally by proper legislation (felons, for instance, as Wrabbit points out above) are entitled to
one and only one vote. That is democracy. Without some form of verification as to identity and/or citizenship at least, that entitlement is
unobtainable. It becomes a simple matter to vote in multiple districts, in multiple states, or to vote despite not being a citizen without legal
restrictions on suffrage. If someone votes illegally or multiple times, it actually removes a portion of my right to have an equal vote among the
legal voting population, because my single vote is then made inferior to the votes of those breaking the law by virtue of the increased amount of
There is nothing religious or spiritual about wishing my rights under secular law to be upheld.
Logically, while I do not in the least dispute that there followers of this "Dominionism" you speak of, I do not see where a position taken by them
equates to everyone taking a similar stance being one of them. If A is a subset of B, it does not follow that all B are also A.
I would love to continue debating this topic with you, but I cannot accept that logical fallacy. The debate would have to be couched in the assumption
that there are those (including myself) who are not bringing religion into a secular argument.