Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Well, you argument is based on the notion that “islamist” means “Islamic terrorist” (because they rhyme?)
However, this is not the right definition. Just check the wikipedia entry. Islamism means exactly what Glenn says: ideology that holds that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system.

To equate islamism with terrorism is just a Humpty Dumpty trick you’re talking about.
To say that every islamist supports terrorism, violence and “worldwide caliphate” is wrong and wildly paranoid.
In fact, if you do this, you must agree that the “War on Terror” in Iraq is totally lost long ago, since 90% of the Iraqi political parties are blatantly islamistic.

It is true, indeed, that Iraqi’s current prime minister seems to have “terrorist mastermind” in his CV, but this is just an unfortunate fact of his biography; he definitely doesn’t have terrorism in his political platform, or, at least, doesn’t wear it on his sleeve.

The way Iraq is becoming Islamic country thanks to the overthrow of Saddam and to the Sharia constitution that they now have has mostly to do with such things as “moral conduct”, sexual rights, women’s rights and so on—basically, the same issues that are key to what Sullivan describes as “Christianists”.

In short, your accusation of Sullivan of the frivolous vocabulary is totally groundless. And you do exactly the same thing that you accuse Sullivan of doing.

Islamist, with the connotation of terrorist

Who said “Islamist” had the connotation of terrorist?  Maybe it does to you, but most right-wing bloggers I’ve seen using it claim have a more general definition in mind, along the lines of “someone who wants to see Islamic law and Islamic principles become the basis of government.” Thus it’s not uncommon to see distinctions made about “radical Islamists” and “moderate Islamists,” etc.  Malkin sometimes writes “Islamist terrorist”, and also uses the word “islamist” to refer to those merely expressing outrage at offensive speech by non-Muslim, demanding that cartoons be pulled off of web sites, and other non-violent acts.  So at least on the surface the use of “Islamist” is fairly broad.

But in spite of those surface distinctions and protestations, I think you’re right that the connotation of “terrorist” has been attached to the word.  You just won’t find someone like Malkin (and many others) admitting that when they use the word to describe someone merely engaging in non-violent protest they are actually attaching a word with the connotation of “terrorist” to someone who is not, in fact, a terrorist.  But isn’t that the point of the campaign against “Dhimmitude”?  It’s unacceptable for Muslims who find some practices in the society they live in offensive to their religious sensibilities to want to see legal and social changes *even through political protest and other non-violent means* that would essentially impose their religious view on those who disagree. 

The rhetorical sleight-of-hand is needed because if you substitute “Christian” for “Muslim” in that sentence, you have a fair description of many who are so deeply offended at the idea of Muslim religious views being imposed politically on non-Muslims.  Hence the alarm at Sullivan’s comparison on that point.  It’s a rather uncomfortable comparison for many because it hits too close to home.

And maybe Sullivan is doing the same thing.  Maybe he’s intentionally creating a connotation of “terrorist” where that would be grossly unfair, lumping together the non-violent and violent in an over-broad category, then covering that up by putting on a veneer of finer distinction that (ineffectively) denies the connotation.  It’s not hard to imagine that in drawing the uncomfortable analogy, using a word with the same “-ist” construction, Sullivan also mirror the insincere cover story that denies the connotations even while employing them.

"Let the listener or reader beware: -ist and -phobe, more often than not these days, are suffixes tacked on to words to turn them into fierce derogations.”

The appropriate response to Mr. Sullivan is not quibbling with him about the meaning of the (stupid) new word he invented, but instead to invent a stupid new word of our own! So I give you: Christianphobe! As in, one who is afraid of or hates Christians.

Andrew Sullivan is clearly a Christianphobe. But where does his Christianphobia come from? Perhaps Mr. Sullivan adopts a Christianphobic stance because he himself is in denial about his own Christianity! Mr. Sullivan is a closeted self-hating Christian, adopting a Christianphobic position as cover. It’s so obvious now!

Way off base, good professor. A lot of smart people seem to be having trouble getting this straight. Islamist does not equal terrorist. As a matter of fact, I think that’s why a lot of people have using the term “islamofascist” for the terrorists. An Islamist is one who combines religion and politics. I think that a Christianist would be a fair comparison for those who wish to impose their Christian views/morality on the rest of us (and personally, I find that far more offensive than a word).

I like the fact that the word “christianist” exists (even if I’m unlikely to use it with the precise meaning that Sullivan intends) because I think its important to differentiate between what Christianity means as expressed in the Gospels and what Christianity means as expressed in current public discourse.

One of the overriding themes of the New Testament is that of hypocrisy. Judge not, lest you be judged, when you pray, pray in secret, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, don’t speak of the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a log in your own..etc.

The degree to which politically active Christian sects stray from these ideals is the degree to which I want a label to separate their beliefs from my own.

Call me selfish but I hope that “christianist” makes Oxford’s English within ten years.

Originally, the name Methodist (an “ist” word!)was used as a term of derision for the Wesley brothers and their followers.  The name stuck and has since became a source of pride.  Andrew Sullivan and others can call me a Christian, a Methodist, or a Christianist if it suits them.  It doesn’t change who I am.

Oh, and I’ll leave my Christianist beliefs out of my politics when secularists leave their secular beliefs our of theirs.

Andrew Sullivan is clearly a Christianphobe. 

He’s a Christian himself, so you’re more than a little off base there.  What he hates are those who want to politicize faith, and you wouldn’t use “Christian” to describe those people unless you think that all Christians want to politicize faith. 

What we need is a word to refer to that (rather large) subset who want to politicize their faith, i.e., they want to use the power of government to shape society according to their religious ideals.  If we’re talking about a subset of Muslims, the word “Islamist” has caught on.  If we’re talking about a subset of Christians, what term to you propose?  If you have a better word than “Christianist” to describe that movement in our society, start using it.  Maybe it will catch on. 

Until then, I suppose you could call him a Christianistphobe, countering one derogative suffix with another.  It’s more awkward than your proposed label, but unlike your proposed label it has the virtue of being true.

Oh, and I’ll leave my Christianist beliefs out of my politics when secularists leave their secular beliefs our of theirs.

If you’re setting your moral standards according to those of the secularists then that’s an odd form of Christianity.  If you think that deciding how to live out the reality of faith in this world is not a moral decision, but rather a political one, that’s also an odd form of Christianity.  Not that you don’t have plenty of company.

Make no mistake, he intends it to be an insult, a weapon used against his enemies.  Nobody should buy that he only means to equate the theocratic character of what he terms “Christianists” with the theocratic character of what are known as “Islamists.”

If all he wanted to do was highlight this point, he’d refer to the targeted group as theocrats or the “religious right.” Several words already exist to say what he says he is trying to convey!  No, he means much more than that.  He wishes to implicate, to conflate, what he views as the evil of American Christian fundamentalism with the evil of Islamic fundamentalism.  The problem is that they are not remotely comparable.  Sensible secularists like Reynolds and Althouse realize that American Christians are not the enemy.  The “Islamist” state of Iran regularly executes homosexuals.  Andrew is equating these madmen to American Christians who are not yet ready to endorse gay marriage.  This is why the terms are offensive, because it is so obviously a false comparison.

Further, I think his definition of theocracy is essentially useless. It is idiotic to say that religious beliefs cannot influence law.  Andrew Sullivan claims to be Christian (a Christian of “doubt,” just about the only thing he’s certain of is that gays should be “married).  If Andrew’s beliefs about Jesus’ teachings inform his views on gay marriage, is he then a “theocrat”?  If we are to apply his standard, then yes he would be one.

1. An Islamist is not a terrorist, but one who advances Islam as a political systemto govern all.  Accordingly, all Islamic terrorists (Islamofascicts?) may be Islamists, but not all Islamists are terrorists.

2. There are Christians who claim that Christianity should be the core of our political system.

so.....

What’s offensive about a neoligism making the distinction between Christians who simply want to practice their religion and Christians who want THEIR religion to be EVERYONE’s political system?

Why is an ‘ism’ neologism OK for Muslims but not for Christians? At the very least, I’d think that both would need to be condemned or both would have to be accepted.

bb-

My remarks were intended to be humorous. “Christianistphobe” misses the entire point by giving legitimacy to the word “christianist”. I can’t think of any short, snappy term that describes those who wish to impose some sort of Christian Theocratic State upon America, not least because Christianity does not have the same tradition of political-religious syncretism as does Islam. In fact, that could be a good term: Theopolitical Syncretics. Those who wish to combine the disparate philosophies of their native faith with the state. This of course is distinct from Caesaropapism a la England, or Theocracy, a la the Vatican.

Let’s be clear about one thing about Sully.  He’s invented a pejorative to describe Republican Christians who express their faith in a way he doesn’t like.  Fine, whatever.  Except that he claims to be a Christian himself.  If that is true, his Christian faith must by needs inform his character and judgment on his political stances.  So he’s guilty of that which he accuses others of.  It’s just that he dislikes their religious stances and not his own.  If Republican Christians were attempting to impose a religious-based order on America that exactly mirrored his own we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of him.

"If Republican Christians were attempting to impose a religious-based order on America that exactly mirrored his own we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of him.”

Exactly.  And go look at his post on “Christianism” concerning an anti-contraception billboard.  His use there demonstrates he uses the term to smear social conservatives generally, not only those committed to Christian theocracy.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/christianism_wa_2.html

If you think that deciding how to live out the reality of faith in this world is not a moral decision, but rather a political one, that’s also an odd form of Christianity.

That’s perfectly Christianist: ‘my religion must fully compel all of my political beliefs.’

BB, your picture will doubtlessly accompany the dictionary definition of Christianism.  By the way, I’m eating shellfish right now.  That must drive you crazy.

If there weren’t already a term equivalent to Islamist—that is, Christian Reconstructionist—then Sullivan might be justified in creating a neologism.  Since, however, there already is such a term, it speaks to either his gross ignorance of that which he pontificates upon, or his deliberate malice.  When Sullivan admits to either, let me know.  In the meantime, he deserves all the attack he receives.

not least because Christianity does not have the same tradition of political-religious syncretism as does Islam.

Sully is basically pointing out that although Christians don’t have a tradition of political-religious syncretism, in America a disturbingly large faction of Christians are trying to make up for lost time. 

Using government power for social engineering is foolish.  It doesn’t work.  There is no government power, no matter how well intentioned the initial proponents might be, that won’t be corrupted.  Using government power for liberal-style social engineering is just as foolish as using it for an evangelical Christian flavor of social engineering. 

The problem isn’t people of faith being politically active—it’s entirely possible to be religious and politically active without conflating the two.  The problem is the attempt to blur the distinction between Christianity and their own political ideology.  When you conflate political ideology and religious faith, and the political inevitably becomes corrupted, the corruption isn’t limited to the political.  Among other things, the political leaders riding the wave of political/religious conflation, whether sincerely or in cynical exploitation of the movement, become perceived as spokespersons and examples for not just the political ideology they represent, but the religious faith that has been conflated with it. 

That’s what the label “Christianist” is about, IMO.

BB, your picture will doubtlessly accompany the dictionary definition of Christianism.

Except that I think Christianism is a bad thing, and want nothing to do with it, and don’t support either its means or its ends, you’d have a point.

By the way, I’m eating shellfish right now. That must drive you crazy.

Yeah.  We had turkey pot pies.  So much leftover turkey from turkey day that I am indeed jealous of anyone enjoying anything non-turkey.  And I do love shellfish.

I think Sullivan hit a nerve because he’s right. The christian right is like the Islamists. They even resort to terrorism on occasion: bomb abortion clinics, etc… They want to use the government to force their beleifs on people as well (creationism in school, prayer time, anti-abortion, anti stem cell, anti-gay, censorship, etc...) just like the Islamists do. In fact, on a lot of issues they agree with the Islamists. The term christianist makes perfect sense to me.

’Christianist’ doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. It sounds contrived and Sullivan accounts for 99% of its use. The precise meaning (at least what Sullivan intends) is not immediately grasped and I have not heard it used in ‘watercooler conversations’. All of this does not augur well for its long term survival.  Neologisms are great - it is just hard to coin a catchy one that stands the test of time.

Sullivan is offended by what folks like Bainbridge, Reynolds and Althouse have done to the word “Christian”.

Letting the Republican right claim this word by denying that gay people can be Christian, judging their Christian values over others, and pushing left-leaning Christians out.

Newsflash:  you don’t like it when people call those who use their Christian values as bigots.  Not all Christians do. In fact, true Christians don’t say who’s in, who’s out.

Hence the term Christianist. Those who are not loving God above all, or loving their neighbors as themselves.  Those folks are Christians.  Those who would implement their own conservative social policies on society based on bigoted interpretations of a shared religion are Christianists.

Get it?  Bainbridge is likely a Christianist.  Althouse an atheist.  Reynolds whatever to get the money and business.  He’ll die early, I predict, of natural causes. Bainbridge and Althouse will fall out of favor soon enough, Bainbridge for clinging to outdated ways and Althouse for having no one to cling to when the Reynolds blog goes. She can’t stand alone.

Those who want to take away contraception, abortion rights and all but criminalize homosexuality are advancing an agenda no different from those who would destroy the money supply, collectivize the land and centralize the economy.  The point is not that they would resort to violence in doing this: The point is they believe their moral viewpoint is the only way to live and would press that down on society whether citizens want it or not, and see it as a purifying act.

And I find it fascinating, Mr. Bainbridge, that you complain about Sullivan’s tone when your friend Ann said this in response to Glenn Greenwald’s post:
Glenn Greenwald is such an idiot. Am I supposed to respond to this foolishness? Glenn, you moron, in case you didn’t notice, Sullivan is mocking Mormons in general. That’s what bothered me. I don’t object to the word “Christianists” if it is used fairly to refer to something that is the equivalent of “Islamists.” I use the word “religionists” myself. See here, here, here, and here. Words like this mean something and have a place. The key is to use them in the right place. I criticize Sullivan when he shows a hostility toward ordinary religious people who aren’t trying to bully their way around the political world. There are distinctions to be made here. Why not take a little trouble to try to understand the person you are criticizing before you write, you disreputable slimeball? (And your writing is putrid.) [But I do love the pathetic jealousy of your post title.]

So to review, “moron,” “idiot,” and “slimeball,” with a little pathetic jealousy thrown in.  Never mind that Sullivan wasn’t mocking Mormons.  Or that he criticizes the hypocrisy of religious leaders and those who twist religion into organs for hate, but has always respected faith as long as I’ve read him.  The point is that Sullivan and Greenwald have explained themselves without the ad hominem attacks.  Althouse and Reynolds can’t seem to argue without ad hominem attacks.

He wrote what?? 

IMHO, the appropriate response to the execrable Sullivan and his asinine gay marriage monmania is to ignore him.  I deleted him in 2003 after the satyr (his god is in his groin) accused Pope John Paul II of ‘traditional or longstanding (I forget) antisemitism’ because His Holiness opposed the US invasion of Iraq. 

Nothing salutary is to be found in anything the goat says or writes.

Sullivan is simply woefully uneducated about the founders to argue that today’s “Christianists” are beyond the pale.

Expect some select and occasional Thomas Paine quotes if this ever becomes an issue with him.

I think people are largely feigning offense to oppose a word they simply don’t like.

Why would the word “Christianist” be used to imply that Christians are violent? Are Christians violent? Is that what people think? Are people really trying to suggest that they are violent in the same way as Muslim terrorists?

I don’t think they are, or that that’s a remotely reasonable fear. Yes, if someone talked about our “Christianist” invasion of Iraq, then I’d have a problem with that, so would Sullivan, and the vast majority of people. But that’s not how he or others are using the term. They’re using it to describe people who want to impose their religious views on others.

It seems to me that any reasonable person can see that this is the intended meaning, unless their judgment is simply clouded by their annoyance at the term, and the effort to somehow justify that annoyance.

It’s one thing to acknowledge that a person doesn’t entirely control the way his words are perceived. It is another thing to deliberately misinterpret a word in order to create a straw man that can more easily be attacked. I think we’re seeing much more of the second here than the first.

OF COURSE Sullivan means for “Christianist” to be derogatory and insulting.  He uses the word to describe something he believes warrants derogation and insult.  He is reasonably precise about what he means by the word and quite open about where it fits in with other, existing words.  Compare, for example, “Christian-Christianist-Christian terrorist” with “Muslim-Islamist-Islamic terrorist.”
Sullivan doesn’t rule the linguistic world, of course, but neither do his critics.  Maybe “Christianist” won’t catch on.  Maybe it won’t catch on precisely because people won’t get the parallel descriptions of tendencies on both Islam and Christianity.  But whether it catches on or nor doesn’t depend on whether some pundits, many of whom don’t seem to object to the concept Sullivan means to convery by “Christianism”, try to sell the concept that a word meant to insult A actually insults B.

Oh, and I’ll leave my Christianist beliefs out of my politics when secularists leave their secular beliefs our of theirs.

Ok, so you simply don’t believe in secular government then?  I’m not sure I understand.

"Never mind that Sullivan wasn’t mocking Mormons.”

Funny.  I see Sully’s defenders are as honest as he is.

’Christianist’ doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. It sounds contrived and Sullivan accounts for 99% of its use.

The interesting thing is I don’t think someone who was actually anti-religious would use the term.  If you’re anti-religious, your problem is with Christians and Muslims, not the Christianists and Islamists.  You don’t allow the distinction, where religious people can still say “Heh, well I’m not one of them,” which as Sullivan explains is exactly why he uses the term.

"Christianity does not have the same tradition of political-religious syncretism as does Islam.”

Not the *same*, no, but I guess you weren’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition. There was plenty of quasi-political authority given to Christian churches across Europe and its colonies until about the 18th century. And for those who favor the mingling of church and state, how do you feel about the Chinese government declaring who the Dalai Lama and bishops are? It’s not all that different from the Avignon papacy.

"Sullivan is simply woefully uneducated about the founders to argue that today’s “Christianists” are beyond the pale.”

People that in the name of Christianity fight against condom distribution in Africa are, essentially, killers responsible for the millions of deaths. They:
1) Don’t deserve to be called Christians.
2) Deserve all the derogatory names, and Christianists is as good as any.
3) Will be slime no matter how many references to founders you give.

PG-

What makes Christianity significant in Europe is the fact that very often it existed as a separate and distinct node of power, from Roman times straight through to the twentieth century. Islam, on the other hand, has the feature that the Church was the State, and the State was the Church. This is distinct from a theocratic system, where the Church controls the apparatus of the state, as the Vatican does. Combining Christianity and government is syncretic because Christianity, in theory, should be concerned with the salvation of its members’ immortal souls, while the State is concerned with temporal matters. Islam does away with this distinction by introducing the concept of submission; power flows from God to his Prophet or Caliphate, who is neither king nor priest but instead is both. Everything must submit to God, and everything must submit to the State. Since the church’s aim and the state’s aim are the same, it makes sense (from a believer’s point of view) for the state and the church to become identified. This is helped also by the fact that Islam is not an organized religion; instead, it functions much more like an ideology, which allows a wider variety of interpretations, some of which are statist, than does the strict emphasis on orthodoxy that the Catholic (and by extension Christian) Church has maintained over the centuries. The end result of this is that Islam lends itself to a syncretic ideology much better than does Christianity.

Hans has it right:  Christianist is a term of derision, but it isn’t directed solely at those who would improperly mix church and state.  Thus the criticism of a billboard against contraception.  The billboard isn’t political bullying, it’s persuasive public speech.  But because the speaker dares publicly proclaim his faith, he’s a target of this inane label.

Even if Sully’s term were intended to be taken seriously and used as Sully says (but demonstrably doesn’t mean) it is to be used, it wouldn’t make much sense.  For example, Sully says we should read John Courtney Murray, a prominent Catholic theologian who worked to show that Catholicism and political pluralism were compatible.  But Murray based his pluralism in his Catholicism, so, by Sully’s definition, Murray was a Christianist. 

Sully’s an idiot.  He hasn’t thought about this stuff; he’s simply spouted off.

Obviously, the meaning is “people I don’t agree with and therefore must denigrate with the dreaded ‘ist’.” As Ferris Bueller’s monologue long ago popularized, “a person shouldn’t believe in an ism,” and by extension those that do are unreasonable and prone to irrationality.

Of course, that’s a dangerous game because anyone can play. We might start by labelling Sullivan a “homosexualist,” as his political agenda is often driven by his sexual orientation. We could then move on to reasonably label the Congressional Black Caucus as “racists”—I mean, race is right there in their name, isn’t it?

Do we really want a national debate filled with ultrapolarizing references to “Republican Christianists” and “Democratic homoseuxalists and racists”?

And that’s before we even start to talk about the “Greenwaldian sock puppetists.”

TallDave,

As long as the people calling Sullivan a “homosexualist” were self-identified homosexuals, and the people calling the CBC “blackists” ("racist" is too vague; it assumes that the CBC is organized around race as a concept, instead of around blackness specifically, otherwise why include the word “black”?) were self-identified blacks, I don’t see the problem.

The homosexuals would criticize Sullivan’s homosexualist tendency to frame public policy on whether to tolerate homosexuality or make it legally equal to heterosexuality in terms of homosexuality, because such a tendency reduces homosexuality to some equality-seeking political stance.
The blacks would criticize the CBC’s blackist tendency to frame public policy on the disproportionate poverty and disempowerment of African Americans around blackness, because such a tendency reduces blackness to some equality-seeking political stance.

This strikes me as quite acceptable public debate.

*Yawn*

I don’t worry much about Andrew Sullivan and “Christianists.” I doubt that a term that so many people are having trouble defining will ever (a) catch on and (b) have a concrete meaning. It’s like “Neocon,” which means pretty much whatever the speaker intends it to mean, but whatever it is, it’s bad. I expect “Christianists” to have all the success of Sullivan’s other made-up word, “Eagles,” or Daniel Dennett’s “Brights.”

What galls about Sullivan’s “Christianist” project is that he has decided to “reclaim"/"take back” the word “Christian” from certain people and relabel them with a name he feels is more appropriate. That’s a tremendously uncharitable thing to do.

I’m an orthodox Catholic. (That doesn’t mean I don’t sin, and it doesn’t mean that I’m always successful in my attempts at orthodoxy). As such, I naturally have disagreements with many people who profess to be Christians. But when someone tells me that he’s a Christian, I take him at his word. I may think that he’s quite wrong on important theological matters, but I will almost always take someone at his word when he says that he’s trying to follow Christ. That includes Sullivan. I think his concern for gay issues clouds his judgment on religious matters, but I think he’s making a sincere effort to follow Jesus.

That’s really what “judge not, lest ye be judged” is all about. It doesn’t mean that we’re not allowed to point out that something is evil. It means that we’re not supposed to pretend that we can look into someone’s heart and announce that he bears moral responsibility for engaging in that evil.

Sullivan’s sins don’t concern me too much. I don’t think that his enthusiasm for gay sex is a good thing, and I don’t think it’s what God wants. But I will not say that Sullivan isn’t a follower of Jesus. Sullivan won’t extend me the same courtesy.

Nikolay wrote:

“People that in the name of Christianity fight against condom distribution in Africa are, essentially, killers responsible for the millions of deaths. They:
1) Don’t deserve to be called Christians.
2) Deserve all the derogatory names, and Christianists is as good as any.
3) Will be slime no matter how many references to founders you give.”

Just out of curiosity, do you think all Deontologists are “slime,” or only those who don’t flee to Consequentialism in tough cases?

Re definitions of “Islamist” that make it synonymous with “Muslim who mixes religion and politics,” Mohammed himself was “Islamist” if the term is understood that way.

I agree with those who say that “Christianist” sounds contrived. Sullivan’s made a career out of finding bogey men among the dust bunnies under his bed. The so-called Religious Right hasn’t hijacked “Christian,” because there’s a difference in kind between offensive and defensive action. Trying to hold the traditional (aka “orthodox") line on morality doesn’t sink to the level of hijacking. If some spokesperson for the Bush administration also used “Christian” as an inappropriate modifier to describe policy, then even that usage doesn’t warrant the kind of hysterical reaction that Sullivan’s coining of the term “Christianist” evinces. His stupid new word is meant to bludgeon anyone whose faith is more conservative than his, even in the same communion (as I am). What Sullivan forgets is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church never says gays can’t be Christians. Sadly, that’s not good enough for him, because anything short of outright affirmation of homosexual conduct consigns people to the “Christianist” camp in his head.

Bravo Professor Bainbridge!  I am a frequent reader of Sullivan, Reynolds, and Althouse (and you).  I have a lot of respect for Andrew, but I never liked the term Christianist.  It is not because it reveals some painful truth that is difficult to deal with, but cause it doesn’t fit.  It’s a square peg for a round hole.  If Andrew came up with a better term that worked--well then I might feel different about it. 

For example:  Mr. Prager’s recent made a statement about requiring members of Congress to take their oath on the bible (even if they aren’t Christian).  Ok, Prager was being hyperbolic, provacative, and trying to drum up attention (something that Andrew Sullivan would never ever do), but religious tests like that are expressly proscribed in the Constitution and such a test would also violate the 1st Amendment.  Call me crazy, but if I had to describe Mr. Prager under these circumstances--doesn’t the old standby a**hole work better than Christianist?

Viva Sulllivan, for coining a term that distinguishes Christianity-oriented Christians, from political powerseekers like DJ Kennedy, J. Dobson, et al.

The meaning of words is socially constructed.

Liberal.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/192900.php

Since Andrew liked the Althouse parody so much, let’s remember this parody on Ace of Spades about him and The Daily Dish.

No it seems that Mr. Prager came along just in time to sum up Mr. Sullivan’s neologism.

He wanted the government to confirm and validate the dominant religious belief despite the fact that it is not even his religious belief. Personal beliefs of the Congressman and the demands of the Constitution be damned. If that does not meet Sullivan’s definition of Christianist I am hard pressed to think of what does.

Maybe I am more annoyed because I dated a cal guy forever and had to endlessly hear about UCLA “stealing their mascot,” but I am still confused as to why it is acceptable to offend non-violent but proscriptive Muslims by calling them “Islamists” but beyond the pale to refer to the same sort of Christian as a “Christianists.” This is a bizarre, even laughable double standard that reaffirms the need for a new moniker.

Re: Homosexualist.  Been there, done that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200311240925.asp

If Christianist is offensive, what of the term Islamist, let alone Islamofascist, which Sullivan’s critics (and for that matter, Sullivan himself) are so fond of throwing around? In a society which is supposed to be religion-neutral, and yet where an elected Congressman of Muslim faith is subjected to claptrap like “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies”, why is Christianity somehow more deserving of respect than Islam?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Reynolds and Althouse can’t casually throw around terms like “Islamist” and “Islamofascist” and then credibly get their panties in a bunch over “Christianist.”

James:

Perhaps, but I sure think Mr. Sullivan would get his thong wedged where the sun should never shine, if one of those Christianists we hear so much about expressed bewilderment at his failure to “allow” them to deploy words like faggot, Sodomite, pervert, paedophile etc. in a manner that makes sense to them.

Christianist.
Christianist.
Christianist.

Nope. Not hard to say. Not hard to understand. Works for me and I’ve used it often since first reading it. I don’t care if Sully means it as an insult or not. If Christianists don’t like being named thusly, all the better.

Of course, if somebody out there comes up with a better, more catchy word that describes that group of people who think they know what’s right for me and would be happy to impose that life on me against my will, let’s hear it. For what it’s worth, I’ve always enjoyed the more euphonious “Christers”.

This whole discussion misses the point--both Christianist and Islamist are incredibly stupid terms because they suggest to Christians and Muslims that they should be siding with the theocrats. 

This no less stupid than that Harvard student who wanted to put the word “jihad” in his graduation speech, expecting Americans to think he meant something other than terrorism.

To the author of the comment about 99 percent of the usage of the term “Christianist” is coming from Sullivan: after this thread, it’s down to about 37 percent.

I demand you all stop using “atheist” and call us “athe” ... Wait, what? [/snark]

Touchy touchy.  I see nothing wrong with Sullivan’s usage.  Everyone has Islam on the brain, for obvious reasons.  But Sullivan’s usage of “Christianist” has not been deployed to make comparisons between Christianity and Islam (excepting to clarify the term for the hissy-fitters who relentlessly look for an opportunity to shout “foul!” at him); but merely to distinguish being a Christian from being a believer in enforced Christianist law for all Americans.

Sully is referring to realities like the initial holdup of a papilloma virus vaccine that cures cervical cancer.  That was a Christianist move.  (Thankfully, it failed.) So much actual crazy policy stuff like that has been happening that I don’t think the term “Christian Reconstructionist” covers it.  A one-word pithy and accurate term is useful, and welcome.

Personally, it makes me mindful that I like Christians - Even the ones that personally hold many of the same views, yet do not wish to impose those views on everyone through rule of law and implementation of policy.  It helps me to seperate them from the political pack.

This is one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I’ve read. Your argument of your dislike for Sullivan’s term consists of two points:

1. You dislike the definitions imposed upon the term by those who have had emotional reactions to it (Christianist = terrorist = Christian) and have thereby failed to objectively understand Sullivan’s definition and context.

2. You dislike Sullivan’s immovability on his clear definition and equate (conflate) firmness with narcissism.

Finally, you speak of intersubjectivity as if the use of the term has diffused substantially and Sullivan’s posts have become buried at bottom of the stacks in the basement of a library in Milwaukee.

Astounding.

Basically, what Bainbridge is advocating here is the hopeful and convenient (for the religious right) inability to separate Christianity as a whole from a politicized wing of activist Christians.  No no, cries Bainbridge: you see, if you want to attack James Dobson, for example, the pundit right MUST be allowed to easily mis-characterize any such criticism as in and of itself anti-Christian (which, in fact, is exactly how Dobson tries to frame any criticism of himself or his positions).

The use of a neologism in order to separate out Christianity from an activist, cultural warring political movement defeats the ability of sneering commentators like, say, William Safire, from using equivocation and deceptive rhetoric.  It creates a distinction that’s simply too useful and non-confusing.  Confusion, you see, is what language is supposed to be all about… at least in punditry anyway.

Christianist is OK.  I prefer “dangerous authoritarian anti-american holier-than-thou bible-thumping demagogues”.

"A lot of smart people seem to be having trouble getting this straight. Islamist does not equal terrorist.”

Etc.

But if the meaning of words is socially-constructed, then this surely constitutes a genuine shift or growth in the common understanding of “Islamist”.

I’ve long identified as an environmentalist who supports environmentalism.

Guess I must hate myself.