Conservative Christian dominionists vs. faith

After Charles McVety blew his cover and started taking credit for the amendments to Bill C-10 the suggestion that the Conservatives were allowing Christian dominionists to write policy and were, in effect, forcing a particular religious belief on the country brought a wide range of people to action.

It is probably no surprize to readers that McVety represents a very small constituency and is viewed with great suspicion, not just by secularists, but by those who choose religious faith as a personal conviction.

One of the first blogs to call its readership to protest the offending elements of Bill C-10 was Bene Diction Blogs On. I don't find that astonishing in any way, but it does bring forth something worth underlining. In most religious faiths the overwhelming majority of adherents believe solidly in a person's right to worship, (or not), as they see fit.

As do I.

It would be easy to simply point at the activities of McVety and accuse Christians in general of being on a crusade to dominate government. Or that devout Christians as an identifiable homogeneous group are all social conservatives. That would be wrong. The real Christians I've met comprise a wide spread of political views. None of those I'm willing to listen to have any desire whatsoever to alter secular government.

The McVety's of this world, including Stockwell Day, form a sub-group of a sub-group. They are also non-denominational. Far from promoting the teachings of their prophets and saviours, this very small group is out to acquire power and dominate others. They want to define morality and then rigidly enforce it. PZ Myers, discussing the activities of McVety, makes the point.

We've been living with "conservative values" here in the US for a long time now, and they rarely seem to have anything to do with a social good, or with people actually setting exemplary moral standards for themselves. It's always about narrowing experiences, constraining others to a single permissible range of behaviors, and punishing others outside your domain of accepted social norms.

You know, it is possible to be a liberal, progressive sort of person who doesn't do any of the "bad" things that conservatives detest — who doesn't drink to excess, use addictive drugs, or gamble, who is faithful to a single spouse and doesn't spend time on pornography or prostitution. That people don't do those things is not the distinguishing characteristic of conservative vs. liberal at all. The real difference is that conservatives take sanctimonious pleasure in requiring everyone else to be just like their ideal, and seem to be less interested in measuring up to their own standards themselves than in demanding that others do so; liberals are people who put first priority on abiding by their own standards, and a second priority on allowing others to live their lives as they see fit.

I recommend reading that whole post and then looking around. (You'll learn amazing things about cephalopods, among other things.)

The thing that is most noticeable about what McVety and Day et al represent, and PZ makes the distinction, that the dominionists aren't promoting anything that has to do with Christian values. They are promoting authoritarian "conservative values". In short, they are in charge (because they presume to have special knowledge and abilities), their followers validate their assumed leadership and the masses are expected to conform (because they do not possess special knowledge and abilities). Those who resist are extricated, ostracized and, if the dominionists had their way, jailed.

As for any extremist group they are using a foundation which was formed for another purpose to expand their personal power. For most of this group, the religion they so adamantly demand is foremost in their lives is actually a convenient shelter for their own self-promotion and material gain. Proselytizing done in the name of their various factions expands their power-base.

Using Christianity as an example, the central figure in that faith would be turning over tables and tossing money around the marketplace if he saw what was being done in his name. I don't know how Jesus of Nazareth would view the wealthy, well-dressed televangelists, but I strongly suspect there would be, at the very least, harsh words.

While I subscribe to no religious belief there was a period of my youth where I was, in a fringe sort of way, exposed to the teachings of the Christian religion. It was truly just the basics but what I came away with was the feeling that above all else, Christianity was founded on the basis that it offered something and if you liked it, you were welcome. If you chose not to join in, that was fine too. No harm; no foul.

Regrettably, the first people smeared by the actions of McVety are those who congregate in faith and do not represent the dominionist, literal-Bible-interpreting ideal. That would be the solid majority.