My Photo

Welcome to Mannionville

  • Politics, art, movies, television, books, parenting, home repair, caffeine addiction---you name it, we blog it. Since 2004. Call for free estimate.

The Tip Jar

  • Please help keep this blog running strong with your donation

Help Save the Post Office: My snail mail address

  • Lance Mannion
    109 Third St.
    Wallkill, NY 12589

Save a Blogger From Begging...Buy Stuff

The one, the only

Sister Site

« Raining where you are? | Main | 714 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Dominionist wouldn't work because I am guessing The Decider would decide it meant someone who came from the Dominican Republic or Dominica and next thing you know, a Dominionist will be mixed up with the immigration issue.

Shakespeare's Sister

Dominionist is a specific term for right-wing Christians who are specifically and actively interested in an American theocracy. Are you generally using the phrase "right-wing Christian" to mean the same?

To my mind, there may be a difference. I'm thinking Branch Davidians here, for example. I would certainly classify them as right-wing, but not Dominionist. There are some exceedingly conservative Christians who are very wary about the blurring of the lines between church and state.

Activist right-wing Christians who seek to codify Biblical law into state law are Dominionists, whether they call themselves that or not, whether we (or the media) call them that or not.

Perhaps it's not useful in a political discussion to draw distinctions between right-wing Christians with separatist tendencies and the political activist breed, the latter of which is really our only concern. But as the impetus for the discussion is "not lumping," I thought it might be worth a mention.

Keith Demko

I like the term Christianist .. unfortunately, it seems that no matter what we call them, they're not going anywhere soon .. though I won't be going to see the Da Vinci Code and told people why, I just can't see getting worked up into such a lather over it

Kevin Wolf

Right Wing Fundamentalist is okay. It's at least useful. I tend to say Right Wing Christian, though. I think it's the "Right Wing" part that's most important as that emphasizes the political aspect of their views.

I'll have to think about this, next time I'm writing and need an appropriate term.


I use "fundinazi." Not just for Dominionists (as defined above), but also for evangelicals for whom faith has devolved into spiritual fascism. The "One Way" and "No Jesus, No Peace" crowd.

Anyone afraid of a silly book made into a crappy movie is terribly weak in their faith, anyway.

The Boy

The bottom line is...Dominionist, Christianist, Fundamenalist, whatever...they are literalists. Jonah Goldberg's assertion the other day that Joss Whedon isn't sufficiently "skeptical" of the supernatural because he wrote Buffy and Firefly clinched it. They can't imagine that you're writing fiction for fiction's sake. It must have an agenda behind it. If you're writing about vampires, not only must you believe in vampires, but you apparently must be trying to convince others to believe in them too. If you're writing about "prepubescent children learning magic", you're trying to convince children to learn magic. If you're writing a book questioning biblical events, you must be doing it to subvert Christianity, not just to entertain.


If there really are 90%, they must be wimps, letting themselves get beat up by the other 10%.

Kate Marie

Lance, I liked your post, and I agree with you about the need to define certain categories of Christians more precisely.

I apologize ahead of time for being the token contrarian "conservative of the Catholic stripe" in these comments, and the following point may seem rather too much like picking a nit, but could we at least acknowledge that Dan Brown apparently refers to his specious "history" as fact? I don't care whether people enjoy the stupid book (hell, *I* did) or the stupid movie, but I do care whether the book and the movie contribute to the death spiral of dumbification and historical ignorance into which Americans are being sucked with increasing and disturbing frequency. In other words, -- as my dear historian friend Madman of Chu has said -- if Americans are interested in some of the theological/historical issues which Dan Brown makes a hash of, they would do well to read Elaine Pagels. But they'd rather wait for the movie -- which is fine, except when they start to think of themselves as historically and theologically informed because they saw Howard's movie. And that's *not* something that people do when they read or watch Harry Potter. It's also not Howard's fault, of course.


I always liked the simple, but eleagant "redneck Christians."
Everyone knows exactly who you're talking about.

By the way, this notion that The DaVinci Code "attacks the central tenets" of Christianity is totally false.

It attacks the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, but that doesn'thave anything to do with Christianity.

Also, how does Jesus being married to Mary Magdeline and raising a family threaten any damn thing? I like the story that way. It feels right.

Dan Brown is a terrible writer. A much better book on the subject is "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" -- a fascinating non-fiction work.

David Glynn

Do any of these catch-all phrases encompass my favorite descriptor(stolen from an old family friend), that of "TV Preacher"?

Everyone knows exactly what you mean with that one.


Re The Boy's comment above, apparently Jonah Goldberg isn't aware that Joss Whedon is a self-professed atheist? Braying ignorami, I tells ya.


Of course mice don't wear red pants and white gloves! Mickey was a carnival sideshow act. We all know real mice are sewing waistcoats for the tailor of Gloucester and dining with little cloth napkins behind the tea cups. At least, those which are city mice.


Here in Oz we refer to right-wing warhawks as RWDBs - Right Wing Death Beasts - and if they're literalist apocalyptic Christians as well they're just fundie RWDBs.

As a general descriptor I also quite like fundegelical.

harry near indy

lance, i call them all sorts of terrible names, but out of respect for you, who once asked us to tone down our comments because of the children who come through here, wondering what kindly uncle lance has written lately about harry potter ... well, i shan't repeat them here.

mac macgillicuddy

"Not much I can do to help her, except point out that generations of kids have grown up quite certain that real mice don't talk or wear red shorts and white gloves."



the term Conservative Christian might as well be read as simply Christian, and in fact that's how it's often read and abridged, allowing Right Wing Christians to pass themselves off as mainstream and portray opposition to their agenda as attacks on Christianity in general.

To be honest, this may well mark the end of Christianity as we know it. USA Today had an article a few years back about a 2001 poll that showed tremendous growth in people responding "no religion" when asked (albeit it still only amounted to about 14% overall). It also had this nifty state by state breakdown by affiliation.

I probably fall into that category. I spent my youth as a Lutheran: church choir, camp counselor and so forth. Haven't been back to church in over 10 years now. Not because I didn't like it - it's just I like sleeping on Sunday more. Plus I felt I had reached the point where I had absorbed what I considered the most important lessons from Jesus.

Of course I also often hear that the evangelicals are the largest growing sect of Christianity today. I think that this and the no religion rise are two sides of the same coin. My theory is that mainstream organized religion stagnated in the last few decades. And now people are gravitating away - either towards fundamentalism/evangelicalism or towards a more romantic (literary definition) view of religion - such as Buddhism or Gnosticism (the oldest heresy).

That is what is prompting the howls of the religious right over "The DaVinci Code" (which, although I haven't read it, seems like the Gnostic equivalent of Left Behind, poor writing and all). I do think that in the next 40 years or so we will see a split in Christianity the likes of which haven't been seen since the Reformation. I just hope that no one has to be burned at the stake or fed to lions this time.

Anyway getting back to my original point, even though I know that the religious right is not representative of Christianity, they are the only ones I hear about. I can’t help but think “don’t go to church, it will only encourage them”


By the way this blog post has a bunch of spiffy maps showing Christian affiliation by state. It's really interesting how concentrated each sect is. I remember my surprise moving from Minnesota and finding out that there are really not that many Lutherans outside the Midwest (relatively speaking).

mac macgillicuddy

Just for the record, we are planning to go see the Da Vinci Code (which, my wife points out, is really misnamed, because the artist's name was --and probably still is--Leonardo, and Vinci was where he was from, but I digress...). We are planning to see it not because we believe it is the chronicle of a verifiable, or even feasible, account of world history, but because Tom Hanks is cute. And so is that guy Opie. He makes good movies, too. And we like popcorn...sometimes, anyway; other times it gets in your teeth. But I digress, again...

Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have each said that the movie is fantasy. "Nonsense," I believe is what Hanks said. They just need work, and this seemed like a pretty good gig.

Nevermind whatever happened to faith, whatever happened to willing suspension of disbelief?

Mike Schilling

More Wodehouse references!


I have a suggestion for a term to describe right-wing Christians: Left Behinders.

harry near indy

i'll add this: i wonder how many professed christians who despise this movie will pray for the redemption of the souls of all those who were involved with it.

i bet the number will be fewer than the number of professed christians who condemn those people to hell and worse.

their form of christianity gives them sanctification and justification to hate. the object of hatred doesn't matter, just as long as it's something to hate.


Last night I had an option: go see the Code indoors, or freeze my butt at the outdoors projection of Harry Potter #4. I thought I'd rather learn me some majick - my faith in wizardry was wavering lately. And it was cheaper, too: ticket, small popcorn and a lemonade for $5.50 total.


I'm partial to Dominionist just because it's similar to the name of a evil group of aliens bent on galactic conquest in Star Trek.

Sister Weasle

I like the term Dominionist, but it seems like it might be a mouth-full and could be turned to their advantage somehow...

so I wrote a short piece on a term I would like to see gain use:

Christian Nationalists

eddie d

I like Gore Vidal's decsription the best. He calls them "Jesus Christers."

One whole wing of my family are fundamentalists and to my ear, "Jesus Christers" fits just about right.

They don't care about anything Jesus actually said or did, just that he is the true godhead and since they have taken him as their "personal lord and savior" they are the saved ones. Of course they aren't, but the rank tribalism, selfishness and greed underscoring their self-absorbtion also underscores their self-delusion.


A couple of nits - Dan Brown hardly invented calling da Vinci da Vinci; whether correct or not, it's very common. Secondly, the book at any rate doesn't claim Jesus wasn't crucified (although if I recall correctly, Holy Blood Holy Grail does claim that). More substantially - for crying out loud, if their faith is so weak that a novel can destroy it, no wonder they're so terrified of anything the slightest bit different.


Slothrop wrote:
By the way, this notion that The DaVinci Code "attacks the central tenets" of Christianity is totally false.

It attacks the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, but that doesn'thave anything to do with Christianity.

I will preface this with the fact that I quite enjoyed "The DaVinci Code" much teh same way I enjoy Robert ludlum novels. But I do have to point ou that the central tenet of Christianity is that Christ died on the cross and the divinity of Christ. If you remove those two concepts, which "The DaVinci Code" does, what you are left with is far from Christianity.

I also have to agree with Kate Marie, Brown does claim that the history described in his book is in fact true and I dislike that for the same reasons she described so elequently. I imagine that that little disclamer has made a vast contribution to the success of the book and the industry that has sprung up around it.

I am hoping that the movie will be better than most of the movies made based on R. Ludlums novels. It did really remind me of Ludlums novels in a big way. Not just the plot but the voice in which Brown wrote it.


We used to have a great term for them. God Botherers. Shame it's going out of style.


The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is interesting and thought provoking, but that is it. I think that many Christians fear that the gullable readers will accept the book as the truth.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Data Analysis

  • Data Analysis


April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Movies, Music, Books, Kindles, and more

For All Your Laundry Needs

In Case of Typepad Emergency Break Glass

Be Smart, Buy Books

Blog powered by Typepad