I still recommend the podcast full interview, but here’s the author being interviewed in print and defining some terms Samuel L. Perry: Christian nationalism broadly is an ideology that idealizes and advocates, a fusion of American civic life with a particular kind of “Christianity.” We always want to put an asterisk or scare quotes around Christianity because I think the Christianity that many Americans have in mind when they want to see a fusion of this kind of Christianity with American civic life is an ethnically specific Christianity. And this is why we call it White Christian nationalism. We are trying to be more specific that the phenomenon that we’re describing is White Christian nationalism because for these Americans, they envision a fusion of American identity symbolism, policies and sacred values with an expression of Christianity that is shaped by White conservative, nativist understandings of what it means to be an American. If you listen to the prayer that the QAnon shaman gave in the Senate chamber after they had taken over the Capitol, the kind of language that they’re using. — he’s thanking God for filling the chamber with patriots who love God and love Christ. And he was thanking God for allowing them to send a message to the tyrants and the communists and the globalists. And he says this verbatim. He says sending messages that this is our nation, not theirs. And beneath that, I think, is the White Christian nationalist assumption that America properly belongs to people like us. It is the kind of people who are entering, who are in that chamber, who are willing to not only support Trump but willing to fight, to take back a country that they feel like had been stolen away. That is at the core of White Christian nationalism: the belief that America is for people like us, and “Christian” is a part of that, but it’s also broader — it’s ethnic, it’s cultural, it’s nativist. And Christian nationalism is associated with being willing to engage in authoritarian violence to be able to maintain law and order. Q&A With ‘The Flag And The Cross’ Author Samuel L. Perry On White Christian Nationalism
Well that is just nonsense. Everybody has the freedom to have their own beliefs and act on them, as long as they don’t significantly infringe on or hurt others. Making early term abortions is based on a religious belief, and obviously infringes greatly in others. The religious belief is that an early term fetus is substantially the same as a born human, even though by any objective criteria it does not contain the attributes (aside from DNA ) of what effectively make humans unique. The fact that legislating anti abortion views on all are highly correlated with certain religions shows they are religiously based. It mostly comes down to fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Thus I view some of the current and proposed laws as Christian Sharia. I do think you can have a more nuanced conversation around abortions beyond 12-15 weeks, with exceptions, as many other developed countries have such policies.
The theologian Carl Ellis makes a distinction between Christianity and Christianityism. He says: As a Christian I oppose Christianityism. What bothers me in this thread is how many seem to lump all Christians into one bucket of “Christian Nationalist.”
And if Christian nationalism isn’t scary enough, we have Peter Thiel’s Christian influenced techno capitalist fascism Where to begin? First of all, yes, Thiel’s libertarianism is about freedom—freedom for him and people like him, the entrepreneurial elite of the capitalist class. He’s openly antidemocratic. In an essay for the Cato Institute, Thiel once wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible…” Why? Because if you empower the demos, they will eventually vote for restrictions on the power of capitalists. and therefore, restrictions on their “freedom.” He continues, “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy‘ into an oxymoron.” In that 2009 essay, Thiel imagines a kind of futurist program of utopian projects “beyond politics” in cyberspace or “seasteading,” but it’s clear now he’s returned to believing in politics, or at least an anti-political form of politics. The Enigma of Peter Thiel
This is a great illustrative question. I believe we should leave people be with two exceptions: if they cause harm to others or if they impose demonstrable harm to society/the environment. In that case, one must balance individual rights versus the harm caused to others. Apply this to issues: - Guns are the leading cause of death among youth in America. Guns have become the top injury-related cause of death for U.S. kids. Clearly this is a huge, devastating social cost where the right of individuals to carry any weapon (anti-aircraft misled) anywhere (airport?) is logically limited. Plus, the 2nd amendment states: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA being….. Well regulated is right there and the notion that psychologically ill 18 year olds should have unfettered access to weapons produces tragic consequences. - Gay marriage. Well, nobody dies and maybe even some of the many kids in orphanages are adopted. Any harm to others? Not really. Simple case of “if you don’t like it, don’t do it.” Abortion is the toughest issue b/c some folks feel life begins at conception and terminating that obviously weighs against freedom of choice. Others feel life begins at viability (more like 14 weeks) and the mother should have unfettered control over her body until that point. 93% of abortions are performed before 13 weeks and 99% before 20 weeks. Both sides have legitimate views but compromise on this issue is tough when many on either side refuse to seek it. Anyway, it is important to recognize that while many laws “restrict someone from doing something”, it is also important to recognize that if we cling to that logic, black people could not ride in the front of a bus, interracial marriage would be banned, and women would be considered property of their husbands, as all those laws were on the books based on historical/religious tradition. Equity and freedom should supersede “restrictive laws” unless the laws protect others (ie, no smoking cigarettes inside) or society (noise ordinances in bedroom communities, dangerous driving, etc)/environment (don’t dump pollutants, don’t overfish, set fires on public land, etc). I own multiple guns by the way, but I would be 100% comfortable I had to register them, pass training to keep them, and get a license (like owning a car).
I have tried and failed before to express the thought that all religious fundamentalism is dangerous. Islamic fundamentalists flew planes into the World Trade Center. Christian fundamentalists parked a truck near a day care center in a federal building. Jewish fundamentalists in Israel make settlements in land that is being traded for peace. Reasonable Islamics, Christians and Jews are able to get along or go there own way.
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian fundamentalist. He refused to speak of his faith and beliefs, but had ties to the racist Christian I.D. movement evidenced by the photocopies of portions of 'The Turner Diaries' found in his possession when he was arrested. Read more of what motivated his depraved murderous actions at the link. An Accurate Look at Timothy McVeigh's Beliefs
I am not sure how to characterize Mcveigh’s beliefs. Can we agree that they are out of the mainstream?
“The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realized the US is facing a burgeoning White Christian nationalist movement. This movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in its quest to create a White Christian America. “White Christian nationalist beliefs have infiltrated the religious mainstream so thoroughly that virtually any conservative Christian pastor who tries to challenge its ideology risks their career…. Samuel Perry, a professor of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma who is authority on the ideology, calls it an ‘imposter Christianity.’ “Here are three key beliefs often tied to White Christian nationalism. “A belief that the US was founded as a Christian nation…. A belief in a ‘Warrior Christ.”…. A belief there’s such a person as a ‘real American.’” An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy - CNN
Nothing wrong with your take, as long as you realize medical science is marching the age of non-maternal viability closer and closer to the day of conception. And to that end, it is plausible to presume that the mother can say "you can deliver it but I don't want it" and the doctor is required to deliver a VERY premature baby and put it in state-sponsored care. Anything less than that is murder.
Well, at least we don't have fat lips, big nostrils and eat massive amounts of fried chicken and watermelon. Them's the worse of all! Kind of silly, isn't it.
I will make you an agreement, I will not quote Fox News or Breitbart in my points if you don't quote CNN or Ms-NBC. Deal?
Spoken like a true nationalist. A Weimar Republic German nationalist. What could go wrong? Brown is the new pink!
I realize that is a possibility years down the road. But we arent there. Personally I still prefer the Roe model but I think a 15 week limit model is very supportable.
The technology is already there to clone or even create custom designed humans. Not just have them “implanted” but to actually create an artificial womb. It’s already done with animals, ethical questions (and presumably actual laws) are the only barriers to human cloning. But I’m 100% convinced it could be done right now.
Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with CNN. (I don't watch MS-NBC so that's irrelevant.) I know that as some folks tell it CNN is supposed to be the voice of left-wing extremism, like FoxNews is the opposite, but what I see when I watch CNN is news and commentary. And if it's biased against what right-wing extremism is doing to this country, then CNN is being patriotic even if patriotism isn't objective journalism. And I'm adult enough to know when any news channel is trying to feed me a load of crap. That's why you couldn't pay me to watch FoxNews anymore.
Fundamentalist is likely not the best word. But Christian Identity is part of the problem being described. The lack of connection to any form of orthodoxy or orthopraxis does not eliminate the phenomenon and does not make the connection irrelevant for public policy purposes
IMO, what you do in your private time is up to you (well, duh!) and having "interests" of any kind is just being human. What I am mainly talking about is trying to get away from this constant righteous hand grenade throwing from their respective snarky foxholes. It is silly, really. Entertaining? sure, but if this is more a forum of discernment and enlightenment, quoting a source whose proclivities is to make money as effectively as they can from the left-leaning (mostly), bias-confirming-desirous folks, all it does is reach a logical conclusion: I am smart and you are not. Or, "I know I am, but what are you?". It is childish and self serving. And obviously, this can be said for Ms-NBC as well as Fox and Breitbart on the righteous right side. When did childish actions ever end up with anything more than eye rolling, isolation, or a punch to the gut? Aren't you, or anyone reading this post, getting tired of all this silliness? Continually running around at the end of an emotional cul-de-sac may give you some sense of security by knowing the lay of the land but it does not feed your soul. Just a bunch of wash, rinse and repeat. Kind of sad.
If America is considered a Christian nation, what does it say for it that every ill that either side points out is within it? It tells me that people don’t practice what they call themselves very well. The Christian Right supports using government to control others based on their dogma, not using government as a force to actually help people like Christ. It’s about power and control, not Christ.
