Jump to content

Christian nationalism


MiloMorai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is the US of A going down the rabbit hole?

"Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a 'Christian nation'—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future,"

What Is Christian Nationalism and What Is Its History in the U.S.? (newsweek.com)

Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom - Center for American Progress

The Growing Threat of Christian Nationalism in the U.S. | Time

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."" - George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” - Benjamin Franklin

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the bible." - George Washington

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence." - John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the name of Christian Nationalism quite the oxymoron, as Nationalism is incompatible with Christianity. Christian Patriotism, on the other hand, is very reasonable, and probably that is what the proponents of "Christian Nationalism" mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an imaginary term by some U.S. liberal hoping their term will gain traction and make them famous in their niche of politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Rick said:

It is an imaginary term by some U.S. liberal hoping their term will gain traction and make them famous in their niche of politics. 

More like the far Right becoming the western Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sunday said:

I find the name of Christian Nationalism quite the oxymoron, as Nationalism is incompatible with Christianity. Christian Patriotism, on the other hand, is very reasonable, and probably that is what the proponents of "Christian Nationalism" mean.

Good thought and in line with The Great Commission found in Matthew 28:16-20. The fallacies of the left are often found in liberal "news" magazines in order to make a feeble attempt to pump up subscribers for their pathetically low bottom line, a bottom line both financially and intellectually.  

Edited by Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rick said:

Good thought and in line with The Great Commission found in Matthew 28:16-20. The fallacies of the left are often found in liberal "news" magazines in order to make a feeble attempt to pump up subscribers for their pathetically low bottom line, a bottom line both financially and intellectually.  

Saint John Paul II made some statements on the nationalism vs. patriotism matter. See, for instance:

https://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/10/22/pope-st-john-paul-ii-his-words-on-patriotism-and-nationalism/

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37203/extreme-nationalism-was-not-john-paul-iis-vision-for-poland-historian-says

https://humanumreview.com/articles/what-is-patriotism

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick said:

It is an imaginary term by some U.S. liberal hoping their term will gain traction and make them famous in their niche of politics. 

Gotta have a label. If you don't have a label for it, you can't hate it.

Edited to add: And that, right there, is the corollary to 1984 Newspeak.

Edited by DB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Is the US of A going down the rabbit hole?



Speaking as an Atheist in the south...

NO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

"Is it ok for us to hate Christians?"

Mandatory, I think.

The Christian Right has been about to impose a theocratic dictatorship on America since at least 1980.  The Reagan Administration was composed of religious fanatics, or so it was said at the time.  Bush the Elder, not so much, but we were told his son Bushitler was certainly on that track.  And Trump, of course, was going to do the same.  Still waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

"Is it ok for us to hate Christians?"

When they become Christian Taliban, yes.

8 hours ago, rmgill said:



Speaking as an Atheist in the south...

NO. 

It was with 45 but Biden has put a stop, for now, but come Nov 2022 and Nov 2024 that could change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Mandatory, I think.

The Christian Right has been about to impose a theocratic dictatorship on America since at least 1980.  The Reagan Administration was composed of religious fanatics, or so it was said at the time.  Bush the Elder, not so much, but we were told his son Bushitler was certainly on that track.  And Trump, of course, was going to do the same.  Still waiting.

Hi, Christian Right here. Nope, I sure don't want a theocracy based on my religion.  Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Hi, Christian Right here. Nope, I sure don't want a theocracy based on my religion.  Cheers.

You must not be reading the directions from your religious masters who, I'm told, have convinced all you brainwashed fools to blindly follow their every hateful word.  Just ask Milo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, R011 said:

You must not be reading the directions from your religious masters who, I'm told, have convinced all you brainwashed fools to blindly follow their every hateful word.  Just ask Milo.

Shhh don't tell em ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 5:48 AM, Rick said:

It is an imaginary term by some U.S. liberal hoping their term will gain traction and make them famous in their niche of politics. 

I think it is hard to deny that this is a central philosophy of the MAGA movement, even if you want to give it another name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 6:48 PM, R011 said:

Mandatory, I think.

The Christian Right has been about to impose a theocratic dictatorship on America since at least 1980.  The Reagan Administration was composed of religious fanatics, or so it was said at the time.  Bush the Elder, not so much, but we were told his son Bushitler was certainly on that track.  And Trump, of course, was going to do the same.  Still waiting.

I would consider over turning Roe pretty much down that path, considering the majority (2/3's ish) of Americans polled were against changing that established precedent.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I would consider over turning Roe pretty much down that path, considering the majority (2/3's ish) of Americans polled were against changing that established precedent.

Uh... chum, you ARE aware that. Constitutionally speaking,it's up to the states to decide?

Ol' GAVIN or the governor of NY Can still allow ya to abortion your kid up to college age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I would consider over turning Roe pretty much down that path, considering the majority (2/3's ish) of Americans polled were against changing that established precedent.

So we only decide constitutional law based on polling and not on if the law stands of to logic or not? 

If 2/3rds of the people decide that 1/3 can be enslaved, that's ok then? Or do legal powers and rights in the constitution and historic legal writings matter? 
 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NickM said:

Uh... chum, you ARE aware that. Constitutionally speaking,it's up to the states to decide?

Ol' GAVIN or the governor of NY Can still allow ya to abortion your kid up to college age.

Never the less, it was an overturn of precedent by a court strongly rooted in Christianity. There most definitely is a nationalistic, evangelical component to the GOP and it seems to very much set the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

So we only decide constitutional law based on polling and not on if the law stands of to logic or not? 

If 2/3rds of the people decide that 1/3 can be enslaved, that's ok then? 
 

It was a SCOTUS precedent that was popular that was overturned by people with a highly religious background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Never the less, it was an overturn of precedent by a court strongly rooted in Christianity.

Unmitigated Bullcrap.

The judgement was based on sound legal arguments. None of the decision was based on christianity. If that was the case then they would have said it was illegal to practice and then that would be that. Instead they clearly argued that it wasn't in the purview of the federal government at all as a right that was extant and that the federal government had no say in it at all. 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

There most definitely is a nationalistic, evangelical component to the GOP and it seems to very much set the agenda.

What ever that component is, it had nothing to do with the argument of the decision. We can very easily argue why it's wrong for one person to kill another without resorting to Christian theology. 

 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

It was a SCOTUS precedent that was popular that was overturned by people with a highly religious background.

Roe was a SCOTUS decision based upon a popular but wrong reading of the constitution, predicated on a case that was disingenuous from the start (there was no rape in question in Roe) and was badly applied as a principle anywhere else. 

Roe held a penumbra of the 14th amendment's due process clause in that one's right to privacy manifested that the state had no interest in interfering in the decisions between a woman and her doctor. That that principle was applied NOWHERE else in medical decision making is interesting. Not even with COVID or the vaccine mandates. 

More so, the idea of a right to an abortion by way of privacy or any other origin was unspoken of save for a few years before. It was not a right undefined but spoken of in say the federalist papers like so many other rights are and which are arguably protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. 

We have instead this from the dissent from Roe by Rehnquist:
 

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should really read the decision before disingenuously arguing that the decision is predicated upon christian theology. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Here's some key bits to back up my assertions above. 

On the basis of Roe and Right to Privacy...from Dobb's v Jackson

Decision A. 1. Page 9

Constitutional analysis must begin with “the language of the instrument,” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 186–189 (1824), which offers a “fixed standard” for ascertaining what our founding document means, 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §399, p. 383 (1833). The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.

Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. See 410 U. S., at 152–153. And that privacy right, Roe observed, had been found to spring from no fewer than five different constitutional provisions—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at 152.

The Court’s discussion left open at least three ways in which some combination of these provisions could protect the abortion right. One possibility was that the right was “founded . . . in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” Id., at 153. Another was that the right was rooted in the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment, or in some combination of those provisions, and that this right had been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment just as many other Bill of Rights provisions had by then been incorporated. Ibid; see also McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 763–766 (2010) (majority opinion) (discussing incorporation). And a third path was that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments played no role and that the right was simply a component of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Roe, 410 U. S., at 153. Roe expressed the “feel[ing]” that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance.16 The Casey Court did not defend this unfocused analysis and instead grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

On the subject of past history of the right as existing:

B 1 Page 15

Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recog- nized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise of which we are aware. And although law review articles are not reticent about advocat- ing new rights, the earliest article proposing a constitu- tional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe.23
 

Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was re- garded as unlawful and could have very serious conse- quences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s ex- panded criminal liability for abortions. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of preg- nancy, and the remaining States would soon follow.

Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight.


Perhaps Josh, you can cite the section of the Dobbs v Jackson decision that specifically draws from christian theology? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...