Jump to content

Christian nationalism


MiloMorai

Recommended Posts

Also, on the Christian theology thing...

I am an atheist. I have been for decades. That does not mean that we discard all the Christian ethics which were arrived at over thousands of years of society and thinking. That's utterly demented. What do we replace it with first off? 

Mind you, if we just discard laws that place ethical limits on behavior 'based on Christianity, does that mean it's ok for me or another atheist to murder another atheist (or not) since the atheist is not bound by Christian limits on ethics? Should that be allowed and legal for the "not a christian" types who aren't themselves bound by christian theology? More so, would it then be reasonable for someone who worships Kali to go around murdering people as they see fit? Is that the road you want to build? Where doe that road go? Would you be ok with that Josh? 

Perhaps instead we can agree that there are ethics that are guided by and behaviors restricted by law which are not just based upon Christian theological commandments but in fact also lie in entirely secular tests of one person's rights balanced against another person's rights? Those tests work out entirely reasonably well in parallel with Christian 'law' and are quite easily arrived at logically without using the Bible as a source book. Put a different way there's more than one way to calculate the end result that both methods of ethical 'math', Christian and Secular, will thus both agree upon. 


Sorry. I'm quite irked at the whole "it's just a Christian law thing" to argue against killing people/babies/fetuses when there's quite clearly some arguments that are bloody obviously secular. What ever animus atheist have for Christians and Christians might exhibit in return, I frankly find the secularist arguments to be utterly bankrupt and idiotic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 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.

Except that people not of the so called Christian Right oppose abortion too, including the otherwise very liberal Roman Catholic Church.  Not to mention that pro choice voters can and have elected pro-choice governments who can and have passed abortion laws even more liberal than RvW called for.  There's also no reasonable prospect for the pro-life side to pass restrictive national laws assuming the Court would permit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Josh said:

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.

No, it's quite easy to deny as it is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to add, the 'Birthing persons'/chest feeding/'men can also be pregnant too' argument, on top of the  'you can be told what to put in your body' vis a vis vaccines but also be restricted for the same prevention vis a vis ivermectin kinda blows the whole pro-abortion argument of 'my body my choice' for women only ...straight out of the water like a 24 " Long lance blowing the keel out of a small corvette. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that noone of the "a vast right-wing conspiracy of religious extremists has taken American women's right to abortion away" crowd has so far explained to me why Kansas of all places just expressively voted to uphold said right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on theDonald subreddit and TheDonald.net.  i read and posted on those sites daily.

 

What struck me about them was how different they were compared to conservatives in the 90s and early 2000s.  These new conservatives are irreverent,  much less religious (if at all), and prone to a lot of swearing. 

 

Their personal lives, when shared, did not frequently suggest any kind of active religious life and in fact were not morally conservative in areas such as drinking, sex (lots of casual and some members were gay), swearing as mentioned nor in what media they watched or listened to. 

So many were fans of Milo Yiannapolis and David Ruben.

About 20 years ago, Reason magazine had an article about the rise of what they called the "South Park conservative," those on the right who are as I described before: non-religious, not traditional in their personal lives.  It's akin to ehat they call the "dirtbag left."

Trump pretty much is the figurehead of South Park conservatives. These aren't the types that treat Huckabee as the 5th Beatle.

Razorfist is a great example.  His motto is "no gods no chill."  Good luck playing his vids at bible study.

I have been going to Evangelical or similar churches for about 3 decades.  (Now I go to a conservative Anglican church). Hardly a devout evangelical would ever fly this flag or this one.

Christian Nationalism?  Are you forgetting about the African-American Christians in America?  Do you think they voted for him?  Surveys suggest otherwise. Feel free to look them up.

Yeqh, it's safe to say that most Evangelicals voted for him. I bet you a shiny nickel it was due to abortion and anti PC indoctrination.  That's mostly from what I really hear from most of my evangelical friends.  And non evangelicals too.  Some are honestly held their noses when they voted,  anything to get a prolife candidate in office.

I am speaking from personal experience.  If you don't agree, what personal experience can you site?  Do you or any other left leaning member can site similar?  Or is what you know just coming from the media?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I will say that noone of the "a vast right-wing conspiracy of religious extremists has taken American women's right to abortion away" crowd has so far explained to me why Kansas of all places just expressively voted to uphold said right.

See, if you don't allow abortion up to the moment of birth you're a rabid religious nutjob!

This is the current status quo of Abortion limits in Kansas now as I understand.

 

In Kansas, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of June 28, 2022:

  • A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
  • Private insurance policies cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment, unless individuals purchase an optional rider at an additional cost.
  • Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment.
  • Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
  • The use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion is prohibited.
  • The parents of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
  • Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
  • A patient must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer the patient the option to view the image.
  • An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only in cases of life or severely compromised physical health. This law is based on the assertion, which is inconsistent with scientific evidence and has been rejected by the medical community, that a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy. 
  • The state prohibits abortions performed for the purpose of sex selection.

Here's the ballot in question:

https://sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-Primary-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5003.pdf

And the actual question:
 

§ 22. Regulation of abortion.

Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account

for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I will say that noone of the "a vast right-wing conspiracy of religious extremists has taken American women's right to abortion away" crowd has so far explained to me why Kansas of all places just expressively voted to uphold said right.

Because it suits the Reeeing crowd to deliberately misrepresent what the decision was to continue to undermine the Constitution and to subvert the purpose of the SC.

If abortion is now illegal in your state, point the finger at the state legislature that has been hiding behind Roe Vs Wade so they don't have to face making a decision, and now they're caught with their pants down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people that could put forward Francisco Franco as an example of Christian Nationalist, but Franco was never a Nationalist, despite how many English source refer to the National side in the Spanish Civil War as Nationalist. Nationalists were some Basque and Catalan elements on the Red side.

Franco was more of a Monarchist/Catholic Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

When most Americans hear the name "Orban", they likely wonder if he's the guy who played an NYPD detective on Law and Order.  Few could tell you anything about Hungarian politics and even fewer care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R011 said:

When most Americans hear the name "Orban", they likely wonder if he's the guy who played an NYPD detective on Law and Order.  Few could tell you anything about Hungarian politics and even fewer care.

Bruh.  

He legit pivoted like an NBA center. He was going on about American Christian nationalism then BOOM straight into Hungarian Christian nationalism.  Dude straight up sidesteps like Griezmann. Don't make dinner plans with him, he'll be like "yeah we'll do dim sum," then, BOOM, PSYCH WE'RE DOING SEAFOOD BITCH!"

You cannot stop him. You can only contain him. 

For real, though, how many blue-haired Baptist ladies even know who Orban is?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R011 said:

When most Americans hear the name "Orban", they likely wonder if he's the guy who played an NYPD detective on Law and Order.  Few could tell you anything about Hungarian politics and even fewer care.

Those at CPAC sure enjoyed his speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could critique the speech? or are you going to go off on something you don't know anything about, like Georgia Voter Registration law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 8:48 AM, Stargrunt6 said:

I have been on theDonald subreddit and TheDonald.net.  i read and posted on those sites daily.

 

What struck me about them was how different they were compared to conservatives in the 90s and early 2000s.  These new conservatives are irreverent,  much less religious (if at all), and prone to a lot of swearing. 

 

Their personal lives, when shared, did not frequently suggest any kind of active religious life and in fact were not morally conservative in areas such as drinking, sex (lots of casual and some members were gay), swearing as mentioned nor in what media they watched or listened to. 

So many were fans of Milo Yiannapolis and David Ruben.

About 20 years ago, Reason magazine had an article about the rise of what they called the "South Park conservative," those on the right who are as I described before: non-religious, not traditional in their personal lives.  It's akin to ehat they call the "dirtbag left."

Trump pretty much is the figurehead of South Park conservatives. These aren't the types that treat Huckabee as the 5th Beatle.

Razorfist is a great example.  His motto is "no gods no chill."  Good luck playing his vids at bible study.

I have been going to Evangelical or similar churches for about 3 decades.  (Now I go to a conservative Anglican church). Hardly a devout evangelical would ever fly this flag or this one.

Christian Nationalism?  Are you forgetting about the African-American Christians in America?  Do you think they voted for him?  Surveys suggest otherwise. Feel free to look them up.

Yeqh, it's safe to say that most Evangelicals voted for him. I bet you a shiny nickel it was due to abortion and anti PC indoctrination.  That's mostly from what I really hear from most of my evangelical friends.  And non evangelicals too.  Some are honestly held their noses when they voted,  anything to get a prolife candidate in office.

I am speaking from personal experience.  If you don't agree, what personal experience can you site?  Do you or any other left leaning member can site similar?  Or is what you know just coming from the media?

 

Not a believer myself (agnostic not atheist, I think all the major religions have important insights and don’t have a problem with anybody who’s religious as long as they’re not a dick) but I totally agree with this post. One thing you raised is something that a lot of people on both sides of the fence don’t get — lots of USAian devout Christians are black (add Hispanic, Korean, Filipino, etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Perhaps you could critique the speech? or are you going to go off on something you don't know anything about, like Georgia Voter Registration law?

Naw, you tell us. You were the one that went off on a tangent and even modified a post after that post had be commented about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

One thing you raised is something that a lot of people on both sides of the fence don’t get — lots of USAian devout Christians are black (add Hispanic, Korean, Filipino, etc)

But those Christians aren't white, err pure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 6:40 PM, rmgill said:

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? 

 

Well researched and truthfully accurate, as usual with your posts of this type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Angrybk said:

Not a believer myself (agnostic not atheist, I think all the major religions have important insights and don’t have a problem with anybody who’s religious as long as they’re not a dick) but I totally agree with this post. One thing you raised is something that a lot of people on both sides of the fence don’t get — lots of USAian devout Christians are black (add Hispanic, Korean, Filipino, etc). 

Yep.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Naw, you tell us. You were the one that went off on a tangent and even modified a post after that post had be commented about.

You are the one whinging about it. At least cote what you don't like about it. Or is this more you speaking about things you don't know anything about but which you were told to care about? 
 

What's todays NPC talking points bulletin say? 
 

Oh, and you're going to bitch about tangents? This is tank net, tangents are a requirement. But at least be prepared show your data for where the tangent coordinates are on the circle. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

But those Christians aren't white, err pure.

Lots of Democrats with brains have been writing for the past couple years about how 1) woke bullshit has dominated the discourse and 2) the core constituency of Democrat voters is a 50-something black pharmacist in suburban Atlanta (or a Hispanic equivalent in the Southwest) who goes to church sometimes, likes cops ok, and is pretty grossed out by extremism on either end. (which is why Biden won the nomination, it was black people figuring out that all the other candidates were toxic). They're just aren't enough hipsters to make up for the fact that those guys are shifting Republican. 

Edited by Angrybk
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

×
×
  • Create New...