This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christianism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 January 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
"Christianism" is a neologism. I suggested "courageism" a few months back, as an obvious and very meaningful antidote to "terrorism" and was roundly rejected. If "Christianism" is intended to be understood with reference to "Islamism," then every Muslim who believes the government should prohibit publication of the Mohammed cartoons is an "Islamist," by Sullivan's definition, not just a Muslim.
Scott W. Somerville [email protected]
Hi! I reverted your edits of the redirect page because "Christianism" as a philosophy didn't ring a bell for me, and after a quick Google search, I couldn't really come up with any mainstream usages of it as you're defining the term. It seems to be bloggers talking to other bloggers- not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can see how it sort of looks like you're trying to establish a phrase by getting it in Wiki, right? -- Puffy jacket 13:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Note that I'm not the original page creator, but I was looking for a definition and found the redirect. Left as is, but it looks like "Christianism" is becoming the equivalent of "Islamism" (and Christianist the equivalent of Islamist). I would suggest in the future perhaps deleting the redirect, and putting in its place some discussion? KSM
I will redirect this to Christianity. This article is a dictionary definition of a word meant to refer to what "Christianity" ordinarily does. -- Alan McBeth 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alan,
This is not a dictionary definition. It is a stub article requiring further elaboration which is in progress. It is factually based on documented historical and academic material derived from 15 years of research at http://www.christianism.com and other sites.
Dear Alabamaboy,
We appreciate your diligence and astuteness in pursuing this issue. At Hong Kong University and University of California (San Diego), we are developing and elaborating a valid definition of this term, from a dual historical and academic standpoint, using a multitude of valid references, ranging back to Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch and others, rather than dipping into contemporary commentators as cited on the superficial Islamist page. We would appreciate it if you allowed scholarship to proceed, or Wiki administrators and editors at HKU and other universities will intervene. Thank you.
Dear Alabamaboy,
Thank you for your swift response. We seem to be online in simulcast. I agree with you...perhaps we can include the political aspects of this term in two or three paragraphs as the Christianism page further develops. I would not be opposed to that. In fact, if you wish to compose a few sentences to that effect, adding your contemporary references, perhaps we can blend these two perspectives into one article rather than redirect to the other site emphasizing only one perspective. What do you think?
Hello...Thank you...you seem quite reaosnable, actually. *smile* My colleague in San Diego is just waking up now and I've called him from Hong Kong... We will probably prefer to keep the 'Christianism' page as the main page, with a link to 'Christianist'. My colleague will be able to supply several academic references, as you suggest, and perhaps we can delete the 'vanity' site from External Links, or include it among the academic links. My collegue will take over in this discussion while he's enjoying his morning coffee. Good Night!
I've changed my mind. This should be a disambiguation page, linking to Christianity and Dominionism. Any relevant information in this page should be merged into those two articles. This is for two reasons: (1) articles should be organized by subject (as in an encyclopedia), not by terms (as in a dictionary); and (2) when possible, each subject should have only one article. I'll leave time for discussion before making the change, due to the recent activity on this article. -- Alan McBeth 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,
We seem to have a four-way discussion here. Hong Kong, San Diego (my colleague), Alabama and wherever Alan may be. From HK, I've just added three NOTES to the Philosophical Section as Alabamaboy wished, usting HTML coding. I think they do the initial job of documenting Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, etc. My colleague at UCSD and I will continue to expand the historico-philosophical section. Any internal links to other pages are certainly OK in my opinion...as long as the Christianism page remains intact and not redirected as a whole to another definition. I agree that all perspectives must be represented here, precisely because Google and Yahoo return hundreds of thousands of hits, as you point out.
Best wishes...let's keep this project afloat under the Christianism heading until the scholarship is completed or expanded under all sections. Thanks!
Er, okay, I thought Alan McBeth was the anonymous editor I'd discussed this with before so yes, please sign all posts. My first preferences is to keep the article here but I could live with a redirect. IF you two can decide what to do I'll go along with it. Best,-- Alabamaboy 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous Hong Kong contributor visited this article again yesterday, but made no further comments on the redirect. I'll take that as acquiescence. -- Alan McBeth 13:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alan,
If Wikipedia is predicated on your 'assumptions of acquiescence', I truly pity Wikipedia. I suspect you'll find, and very shortly indeed, that other Wiki authorities will beg to differ with your totally unjustified and transparent high-handedness. *smile*
"Anon HK Contributor"
Dear Alabamaboy,
I am looking over guidelines linked to Alan's Wiki page related to Content Forking and POVs.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking). He seems to be violating his own principles in this instance. My colleague in San Diego and I are working on expansion of the historical and philosophical origins of Christianism, a term which is definitely deserving of its own page on WIKIPEDIA.
As I pointed out above, there seems to be a transparent attempt on Alan's part to paint Christianism as a movement of the Christian Right, which in the last few years it has become in narrowly circumscribed geographical regions of the United States. There is, however, the neutral academic perspective which must, for the sake of scholarly excellence, appear on Wikipedia. My collegaue and I will prepare an article in the next week or two and then submit it for consensus to several internationally-based Wiki Administrators.
In the meanwhile, Alan can enjoy his redirect.
I consulted the page simply to read it yesterday, not having time between teaching classes to respond to his three points. He played his hand prematurely.
Best wishes -- "Anon HK Contributor".
Anon HK: It will be easier for us to reach consensus if you assume good faith on my part. You say that I want to "paint Christianism as a movement of the Christian Right," but I still don't know what you mean by "Christianism." I expect that you still intend to answer my questions. -- Alan McBeth 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Alan,
I'm sorry for my initial hot-headed reply to your disambiguation link. Because there is apparently no real choice available as an alternative to a 'Christianism' query except Dominionism and Christianity, you really had no option but to refer enquiries to those two pages. I erroneously inferred that you were of the Christian Right, which may not necessarily be the case.
My colleague and I are still preparing basically a historico-chronological article that will bring the development of Christianism, as a system of belief, up to the 20th Century by citing articles which refer to it under that specific term ('ism' not 'ity'). There will be no attempt to judge or assess this belief-system. It will be a purely objective exercise in academic research, much like the initial material you can review online now.
You may then retain or expand 'Dominionism' information on the Christianism page, if you wish, and/or include links to Christianity or to any other pages that may have direct or peripheral ties to the concept as you view it.
This approach falls into line with the FORKING and POV information suggested by WIKI as a Guideline. All perspectives will be fairly covered, thus avoiding controversy, blockage or ongoing back-chatter among us.
We should both express appreciation to Alabamaboy for objectively mediating and refereeing, if that's the term, this discussion.
Best WIshes, Anon HK Contributor
Dear Alan,
I appreciate your forthrightness and prompt well-reasoned response.
Basically, the approach my colleague and I are taking is etymological and historical. Unlike the thinking of Scott Somerville at the top of this page, Christianism is clearly NOT a neologism. This misconception needs to be dispelled, since the term has been around for millennia.
I will be honest with you, however,and must tell you that my colleague in San Diego is beginning to feel that our historical material could be validly inserted into Christianity, if we all feel that this is the best approach. Still, WIKI should have some sort of skeletal Christianism page. It is a major generator of enquiries that should not be shunted exclusively to either Christianity (given the distinct nature of an ISM as opposed to an ITY) or Dominionism, purely a contemporary term.
I'd be quite interested in your reaction to the etymological approach enunciated above.
Thanks for your time.
Best -- Anon HK Contributor
Dear ALan,
Yes, I agree that there is certainly a place for this information in WIKI's Dictionary if the term etymology were to be taken in its original sense. As you know, however, etymological research is now centered on the connection of both 'meaning' and 'origin of words', thus providing both an historical and systemic overview of the concept being studied. Here is an excerpt from WIKIPEDIA'S own definition of 'Etymology' to guide you in recent trends in this area:
"A little later, in the 19th century, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (a philologist by academic training) used etymological strategies (primarily in On the Genealogy of Morals) in the attempt to show that moral values have origins, using a form of proto-psychology as a foil against which to justify his claims. Although, it must be said, many of Nietzsche's etymologies are wrong, the strategy has gained popularity in the 20th century, with philosophers such as Jacques Derrida using etymologies to indicate former meanings of words with view to decentring the "violent hierarchies" of Western metaphysics."
Given this interpretation, while we may adjust the major headings of the Christianism article as it develops, the historico-etymological foundations of Christianism definitely seem to belong in the Encyclopedia.
Let me work a bit on fleshing out the top section of the existing page. Once completed, we can decide where and how to display it. *smile*
Interestingly, there's an Italian site located at http://www.christianismus.it that you may wish to browse - to grasp the breadth and scope of this topic.
We'll continue our dialogue. I don't oppose the ADVISORY at the top of our page. We can certainly ask other Wikipedians to validate the neutrality of the finished product. They may, on the one hand, find fault with placing 'Dominionism' in such a prominent position, or, on the other hand, may suggest a more purely 'content-oriented or historical' approach to the definition of Christianism.
Sincerely, Anon HK Contributor
Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,
Below is the proposed text of the re-worked Chrstianism article. The headings have been renamed, both sections have been either modified or expanded and new footnotes have been added. They will have to be coded intratextually and renumbered when the article is posted on the Article Page.
HK Contributor 21 May 2006
Christianism refers primarily to a system of theory and practice (in this case religious, ecclesiastical, and philosophical) predicated on the name of Jesus Christ, whose actual identity and existence are either challenged by established academicians [1] or readily accepted on the sheer basis of Faith, and, secondarily, to contemporary practitioners of certain minor anti-secular, pro-religious political ideologies, extant largely in the American South and Southwest, derived from fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity. These movements, all of which lie clearly on the periphery of established religious traditions, are alternatively referred to as Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominionism, and build on a broad spectrum of contradictory beliefs embraced by minoritarian charismatic elements within Roman Catholicism and by similar elements within more than 2,000 sub-divisions of Evangelical Protestantism.
Contents
1 Introduction 2 Historico-Etymological Christianism 3 Fundamentalist Christianism 4 Notes 5 References
Christianism, ending in the suffix "ism" [1a], forms the name of a system of theory and practice, in this case religious, ecclesiastical, and philosophical, predicated on the name of its purported founder, Jesus Christ. Christianism is generally used in place of, or in counter-distinction to, Christianity, which, by virtue of its suffix, "ity", denotes a quality, state, or degree.
The word "Christianity" (Christianism in Greek and Latin) is not used in the New Testament (written in Greek). It appears, formally, much later in a seventeenth century English dictionary.[2] Interestingly, the dictionary in question, Coles' English Dictionary, 1676, was alleged to depend largely for its material on Edward Phillips' New World of English Words, 1658, which in turn is said to have borrowed from Thomas Blount's Glossographia, 1656, and which was denounced by Thomas Blount as "outright plagiarism of his dictionary".[2a] In any event, the term "Christianiity" has existed for at least three hundred years as evidenced by these dictionaries, with first usages of the term denoting a closed belief system being traced back to Antiquity.
Indeed, the earliest usage of the term Christianism appears in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 - c. 107 A.D.), who says (in Greek) that the glory of the Christian is "to live according to Christianism".[3] The term, in Greek, appears within this context as Χριστιανισμός (Christianism).
Somewhat later, writing in Latin, c. 198 - c. 208 A.D., Tertullian used the term "Christianismus" [3a] in his text entitled Adversus Marcionem. [4]
From the earliest times, there has been considerable scholarly and societally-based opposition to the sense of exclusivity that the Christian belief-system, as an "ism", claimed and claims to enjoy.
For example, Mr. Glennie, in a pamphlet reprinted from "In the Morning Land," points out the resemblance between "Christianism" and "Osirianism," as he names the religion of Osiris: "'The peculiar character of Osiris,' says Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 'his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind, with the titles of "Manifester of Good" and "Revealer of Truth;" his being put to death by the malice of the Evil One; his burial and resurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead, are the most interesting features of the Egyptian religion." [4a]
In fact, the central doctrine of Osirianism, as Glennie asserts, is so exquisitely matched to that of Christianism, that it is completely analogous to Christianism, thus eliminating the claim of exclusivity of beliefs proffered by adherents of Christianism. [4b]
So obvious was this contention in academic circles that, particularly in the 19th century, and certainly earlier, scholars were decrying the 'myths' perpetuated by Christianism. One example of the vehemence with which this belief-system has been challenged in relatively recent times surfaces in this quotation from a 19th century writer, Robert Taylor [1784 - 1844].
"The great truth is that there was never but one religion in the world! And the great lie is, the pretence to make a distinction where there never was a difference. Paganism, Judaism, Deism, Christianism, and all other 'isms' are but one and the self-same 'ism', being each or any of them, as chance or different degrees of ingenuity have prevailed, either more or less cleverly constructed poems, or tissues of fiction, thrown over the face of universal nature". [4c]
Although the preceding commentaries shed light on the diversity of emotions and positions to which this term gives rise, Christianism, from a purely historico-etymological standpoint, could be paraphrased similarly to the fashion in which Roman Catholics describe their faith-system, namely as an "intercommunion within a common obedience and discipline." [4d]
The political term Christianism seems to have evolved in western media outlets, particularly in online blogs,[5] as a counterpoint to the term "Islamist." As Andrew Sullivan has said, "Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque."[6]
If "Christianism" is used as a parallel to the more familiar term "Islamism,", and its cognates, "Muslim" and "Islamist", it tends to highlight the degree to which ordinary Christians believe in governmental enforcement of Christianity. A Christian who objects to cartoons of Jesus Christ would be a "Christian" if he or she supports the right to print such cartoons, but would be a "Christianist" if he or she believes the government should prohibit or punish the publication of such pictures.
However, Christian Reconstructionists or Dominionists may or may not agree with this characterization, depending on what is meant by the expressions "wield [Christianity] as a political force" and "conflate state and [church]".
In the sense they believe all areas of life, political as well as social and personal, are to be lived under the rule of God's Law, as they view it, they would affirm that Christianity should be wielded as a political force. Insofar as the government of their nation allows them to actively persue their political ideals, in that measure they should bring Christian ideals (as they understand them) to bear on policy-making and political sanctioning.[7]
Likewise, in the sense they believe that one must render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and one, including Caesar, must render unto God what belongs to God (Matt. 22:21), they would affirm that State and Church are, at least perfunctorily, connected. Though each must operate within its own sphere and domain, without admixture, both must be ultimately subject to God's Law as it variously applies to each.[8]
However, if the expressions are taken to mean "wield Christianity illegally and/or violently to enforce political ideals", and "conflate the functions and spheres of church and state, such that Erastianism or Papalism results", Dominionists, although this seems to contradict their underlying premises, would tend to disagree with such a description of its aims and motives.[9]
Howcome islamist is shown badly, but christianism is shown as good, im getting tired of wikipedia, its full of racism and bigotry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 ( talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1 See: Wikipedia article "Jesus Myth", also: http://www.christianism.com/articles/3.html
1a The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, Vol. VIII, 113.
2 Thomas Blount, Glossographia, 1656.
2a Elisha Coles, An English Dictionary, 1676, Scolar Press, 1971.
3 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1979 (1915), Vol. 1, 658.
3a See: http://www.christianismus.it
4 A Latin Dictionary, Freund's Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, Oxford, 1962 (1879), 328.
4a See: [cut spam link]]
4b "Christ and Osiris," pp. 13, 14.
4c Robert Taylor, #3, 82, 421, H. Cutner [1881 - 1969], The Devil's Chaplain Robert Taylor (1784-1844), The Pioneer Press, c. 1950, 67-68
4d Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, 1978, Vol A-E, p. 677.
5 Christianism vs. Christianity, Daily Kos, November 8, 2004, accessed May 9, 2006.
6 "My Problem with Christianism" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, page 2, accessed May 9, 2006.
7 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Covenant Media Press, 2002, 3rd edt.), pp. 361-367.
8 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp. 389-419; R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), pp. 56, 429.
9 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp. 504-24, Rushdoony, Institutes, pp. 101, 191-193.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, The Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia, Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen S.T.D., J.D. Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: William Cardinal Baum Archibishop of Washington D.C. February 7, 1978, Corpus Publications, 1979, Vol. A-E, 677
My Problem with Christianism: A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, accessed May 9, 2006. Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism"
Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,
I've amended the article's second paragraph (above) under Historico-Etymological Christianity somewhat -- and added a WIKI Reference, plus an internet site to footnote [1]. I realize that we may wish to modify some of this, or further expand it as we work out some of the article's priorities and points of view.
For the moment, we can keep it on the discussion page.
Yours, Anon HK Contributor 23 May 2006
The last two paragraphs are, in fact, an original research essay promoting the views of Christian Reconstructionism. This tends to off-balance the entire entry. I have attempted to rewrite the graphs to be less POV, but it is a block of text that reflects a tiny militiant POV of the very people the critics say are promoting "Christianism," -- the title of this entry. It is as if the entry on Islamism was primarily an essay by Islamists refuting the criticisms.-- Cberlet 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note to "Anon HK Contributor." Please learn some basic rules of writing on this page. It is a simple courtesy. Your use of dashes and equal signs completely screws up the formatting of the page. Stop writing letters with dashes and equal signs.-- Cberlet 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet: NPOV dictates that: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." — note especially "background is provided on who believes what and why". If the section explaining why Reconstructionists believe what they do in light of criticism, is longer or offsets any other section, then I'd suggest beefing up the other section(s) to be of similar quality; i.e., explain the majority position and give an evaluation from other relevant perspectives. Reconstructionism shouldn't be slighted its chance to represent itself because other positions haven't met their own burdens. » MonkeeSage « 09:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cberlet,
I find myself smiling broadly at the above entries posted by all three parties in the last day or so.
Firstly, I apologize if my dashes offended you, but tildes are potentially revealing of one's personal internet data, and hence fundamentally objectionable. While this policy may prove to be proper Wiki etiquette, it discourages perfectly qualified contributors from building Wiki's encyclopedic holdings...which would seem somewhat counter-productive to the intent of Wikipedia as originally intended.
My colleague and I hold perhaps nine University degrees between us in a variety of relevant and irrelevant disciplines, and short of enlisting Elaine Pagels of Princeton to contribute this page to Wikipedia, there may not be another scholarly opportunity in the foreseeable future to assure the public that Wikipedia can, in fact, post a half-decent page on a topic of this nature.
If you re-examine the sequence of events by consulting the History of this Discussion Page you will see that neither I nor my colleague in San Diego ever supported the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominimion inclusion on the Christianism page. It was imposed upon us, doubtless in good faith, by Alan and Monkee Sage, whose intent from the beginning was to shunt all incoming queries over to the highly debated (and hence undermined) Christianity page or to specific minoritarian interest pages such as Dominionism.
The article, as presented above, is deserving of remaining under the heading "Christianism", minus the Christian Reconstructionist section, due to its logical sequential development and potential for further expansion along Historical and Etymological lines. The 'exclusivity' claim, which you feel disqualifies it from appearing under "Christianism", is related to the "ism" nature of the term itself. Any closed belief system is by simple inference claiming to be exclusive, i.e. non-inclusive of other beliefs.
Reconstructionist or Dominionist interests can be best served under those specific article headings, so their adherents need not fear lack of exposure on Wiki.
Cyberlet, Alabama Boy and I seem to feel that Wiki is intrinscally deserving of a Christianism article page, without blind shunting to other titles. I concur, and ask that we post the first two-thirds of the article above, or, alternatively, all of it, under a POV banner if you wish, until the article can be further honed and expanded in directions deemed appropriate by those with expertise in the field. Editing purely by consensus or committee, while democratic, is not necessarily scholarly.
Anon HK Contributor
If that's the case, Alabamaboy, then we'll seek another forum for the Christianism article. Please do not use any of the historico-etymological material above on any Wiki site.
Wiki can wait for Princeton to contribute.
Anon HK Contributor
Shouldn't this be a redirect to Dominionism, an established term with an article? If Wikipedia needs to cover the neologism, then the article should be clearer on that point and that use of Christianism is mostly rhetorical. - Acjelen 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
A pejorative is, by definition, intrinsically contemptuous and/or belittling, and not about mere "disapproval" (as online dictionaries will show). Whether or not the word Christianist is pejorative should be for the reader to decide. Its inclusion is suggestive and weaselly. Because certain individuals personally don't see what's biased about the qualifier is not a good excuse for including it when it could just as soon be left out.
Sullivan is saying that Christianists are Republicans. Not the other way around. It's erroneous to conclude that Sullivan's view of Republicans is based on what would be a fallacy of composition.
That said, I'm not going to revert these same edits twice in a row. If anyone besides me takes exception to them, then that person or one of those people can do it. Adrigon ( talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Look at the edit history of the article. The category I mentioned above is the reason Adrigon is talking about "Sullivan's view of Republicans" etc. and I'm talking about the far right--that category was in the article, I removed it, Adrigon added it back, now I'm explaining why it shouldn't be there. If you want to be more specific about stuff I removed that you have a problem with then I can respond to that; I've given clear reasons for everything I've deleted, and I don't remember much of it being adequately sourced. Similarly I don't know what's wrong with my edit summaries, what minutiae I'm steering the conversation onto, why my edits are unhelpful, etc. I'm not planning to vote in the afd because I don't really know if this article should be kept or not. I do think it should be kept out of Dominionism absent some citations establishing that there's a clear relationship between the two concepts. As I said in the AfD merging it into Christian right would make more sense, since "Christianism" is used as a description of the Christian right in general, not just of Dominionists. The fact that "Christianist" is a negative label is backed up by Safire, who says that it has a "pejorative connotation" and is used "as an attack word on what used to be called the religious right." Prezbo ( talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
People here could fin the following article/blog post from the SSSC intriguing: link, a fairly central site for scholars of religion throughout North America. The term 'Christianism' has been slowly gaining parlance parallel to 'Islamism' as indicative of fundamentalist extremists with a particularly political theology. This is different from dominionism because the focus of each is different: domionism refers to a nonviolent political strategy (or at least one that does not take violence as a necessity) while 'Christianism' and Islamism refer to a violent one, ignoring laws. That is, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, etc would be 'Christianist' while Westboro Baptist Church and the 'Burn a Koran' church fall closer to dominionist beliefs. 90.214.249.253 ( talk) 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of simply deleting the Christianism article, I suggest redirecting and merging it with the Dominionism article. -- Loremaster ( talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.
However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion.
E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people."
And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").
By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."
And "Christianism" as above.
Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to political movements, to avoid confusion.
To be consistent I will also add this discussion to the "Islamism" page.
--
Musa Emre (
talk) 10:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we are giving undue weight to the opinion of all these bloggers. The term is not new and even if some uses it in a pejorative way, it's still pretty much a synonymous for Christianity. Is the pejorative usage really that common in the US? Laurent ( talk) 04:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to the Merriam Webster definition- "the religious system, tenets, or practices of Christians"- and replaced it with a reference to the Atlantic. The word was coined in an analogy to Islamism, Islam as a political philosophy. The Merriam Webster definition does not distinguish Christianism from Christianity, and contradicts the note "Not to be confused with Christianity". Abigailgem ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I have redirected the article "Christianism" to "Christianity", and the latter should report "Christianism" as a variant name of the religion. "Christianism" is the original name of the Christian religion (Gr. Khristianismos, La. Christianismus), pre-dating "Christianity" which originally was a Latinate synonym of "Christendom", referring to the Christian world or Christian community (which at the time of its original usage was the civilization of Medieval Europe). Later "Christianity" became the name of the religion while "Christendom" remained the term referring to the Christian world, while "Christianism" fell out of use. The attempt to mutate the usage of "Christianism" to refer to Christian fundamentalism can be traced back to a few American journalistic articles of the early 21st century — apparently all written by Andrew Sullivan, who is not even a professional journalist —, and such attempt originated as a clumsy imitation of " Islamism". Such attempt is not enough to change the long established meaning of this ancient word, and the article "Christianism" on Wikipedia gave it WP:UNDUE weight, as it has been repeatedly noted in almost all the past discussions on this talk page.-- 37.161.156.78 ( talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)