Christian Dominionism can be criticized on any number of grounds. Among them are its impiety, its hypocrisy, and its “falsity.” Because impiety frequently leads to hypocrisy, and hypocrisy to falsity, none of these appraisals can be adequately grasped without taking into consideration the others. Nonetheless, they are distinguishable enough to bear separate scrutiny. Before starting, however, a disclaimer is in order, namely, that the censures of impiety, hypocrisy, and falsity are not immune to criticism themselves. The demand of piety, for instance, imposes on neo-Calvinist Dominionism an ethical standard derived from Roman Catholic social teachings, the validity of which it denies. The criticism of hypocrisy is also problematic, not because it is untrue but because anyone who stands on principle is bound to deviate from it at some point and thus betray him-or herself. The third criticism, that Christian Dominionism is false, evaluates it against its own its professed goals. Thus, it is both more germane and less frivolous than moral posturing but, because it derives from an orientation known as critical theory, which is rooted in Marxism and Freudianism, both of which Dominionists disavow, it too will raise hackles. However this may be, it is the third critique that will occupy the balance of our attention in this chapter. But first, a few words on impiety and hypocrisy.