@mrhansduck something else worth mentioning is there is a form of non-religious anti-feminist male-only polyamory emerging in our culture that slut-shames women with high body counts as undesirable while simultaneously considering men with the highest body counts to be the cream of the crop men. We haven't codified polygamy legally, but that is happening in our culture. So, you could say that things are coming full circle in post-Christian America and our culture is shifting back to cultural norms when Christianity is not a dominant influence on the culture. Polygamy even if we don't call it that or legally recognize it as a legal institution has come back in full force among those who would consider themselves non-religious IMO.
I hear you, but it sure sounds like you’re preaching, and not responding to the secular needs of children. And, I’m sure it’s not your intent, but it sure is arrogant, if not offensive, to make such a bold conclusion that it is a societal failure if a child is not raised Christian. I believe that every one should practice their own faith, or no faith, as they see things in their heart. Indeed, it is a core right in this country. Speaking only experientially, having grownup in both Louisiana and South Florida, there no religion that raises a child better than another; it is the core values taught by parents that provide character and structure. And as for basic needs? The need for Food, healthcare, shelter and education are all color/race/religion blind. Everyone needs it, and everyone deserves it.
But have you considered the cruelty to the unborn child by requiring the unwilling female to carry it to term? Alcohol,tobacco, drugs, bad nutrition, all force-fed to the fetus, some so much so that the development is permanently scarred. That’s cruel. And further, have you considered the societal cruelty to the unwanted child? The hunger, lack of care, deprivation of education, no preparation for a responsible adult life? That’s cruel, in my book.
I am surprised you took my post as raging. Discrimination and double standards against women have existed throughout history and across the globe. We still see it today to a lesser extent. Do you think a woman who'd had kids by three different baby daddies could be elected president and become the de facto leader of the Christian right? I asked about which modern Christian nations have upheld the “Christian sexual ethic” because I was curious if you believe there are examples and what those might be. You mentioned history since the year 1900. To the extent you believe that era was a time when things started going wrong, it seems fair to point out that women couldn't vote in the U.S. until 1920. Also throw in life expectancy and womens' options in those days. It stands to reason that divorce was less common when people were dying in their 40s and women didn't have many options. Heck, from what I can tell, our states didn't even recognize the crime of spousal rape until the 1970's. IMO, ending no fault divorce might be good for lawyers, but I don't think it would repair broken relationships or make people better parents to their kids. Seems like there could be a way to address why so many marriages are failing rather than force people to stay married who don't want to be.
I did not take your post as raging. That was hyperbolic language, but I would say your post was critical. I do not consider DJT to be my leader. He is a political candidate in a two-party system in a post-Christian nation. He is a reflection of the post-Christian nation that he comes from. To answer your second question...you will need to bring clarity to what you mean by "Christian nation." Some pointers: There are people who claim to be Christians who would also say they do not believe in God. There are also people who call themselves Christians simply because they go to church and identify with a denomination. There are others who don't believe in fundamental Christian truth like the trinity, the deity of Christ, etc, who would call themselves Christian. And there are others who say they are Christian, and yet they support very unChristian things like abortion and homosexuality. There are others who might support all the right things with their lips, but they don't obey what the Bible teaches. To directly answer your question, I would not argue that a Christian nation exists in the world today. The west is post-Christian. Large parts of the Middle East and Africa are Islamic. And then large parts of the east are atheistic and Marxist. For the most part, even in countries with sizeable numbers of people who identify as Christian, it cannot be said that the nations where the most Christians dwell are explicitly Christian. The United States is most certainly not a Christian nation. So my list of Christian nations is as follows: What nations would you consider to be "modern Christian nations?"
Every race is local, the last guy I think had felony charges or something, which didn’t help the Republican cause. But it was a purple district and she won by 25 points. It has to send a message to republicans. Which in fairness they are seemingly finally hearing, much of their rhetoric and has toned down nationally as have their gleefully unrealistic and unpopular bills…they realize how damaging it is for them. Problem for them is that no one really believes they got religion on this issue (pun intended), and that as soon as they can they will go back to the draconian bills that proliferated right after the ruling.
Pointing out women's suffrage on the timeline is a fair point. I don't think Christianity has a stance on woman's suffrage, and what I mean by that is no stance on a preferred form of government is given in the Bible. A government could be a monarchy. It could be purely democratic. Or it could be anything in between. All of those are acceptable forms of government. None of them in and of themselves are wrong. I am not so much concerned about who has the power as I am about how that power is used. I think the moral dimension of government is located in government's praxis and not necessarily in who is allowed to have and exercise that power. Is the power used properly, or is it abused? So, I don't think it was wrong per say that only men voted prior to the 1920s. It is what those men did with their vote that matters. I also don't have a problem with only landowners being able to vote in the early days of America. It is what those landowners did with their votes that matters. Slavery was wrong. That is where my sharp criticisms of American government in generations past are located. Allowing abortion on demand was wrong. Those are the kinds of things that matter to me. And denying black men the ability to vote was also wrong because that came from treating black men as less than human. When I evaluate woman's suffrage, I look more at the results that followed. How has the US fared since woman's suffrage was instituted? Not good IMO. The floodgates of evil have opened with respect to the US government since woman's suffrage was instituted.
Good grief you own the most lunatic take on Too Hot this year which is saying something. However I’m sure you’ll out do yourself. I have not put you on ignore because the pathology at work here is fascinating.
I would encourage you to go back and examine the question I posed earlier: A human being needs (fill in the blank). They need food, water, shelter, a nuclear family, and to know that Jesus is their Lord and Savior. None of that is out of reach for a child if the mother is willing to try. There is government assistance to help with many of the financial aspects involved regarding the needs of the child. Possibly having an intact nuclear family is in question, which could be a great loss for the child, but that does not mean you whet the knife and kill the child. It is the peak of arrogance to think that a parent has the right to whet the knife and take the life of their own child. If you can't provide for a child, then put it up for adoption to someone who can provide for the child. So, yes I have considered these things. It is a simple choice between the truth and a lie, good and evil, God and the devil, selfishness and sacrifice, faith and fear, and life and death. There is no contest with respect to which outcome is the most cruel. One involves difficulty and is temporary. The other involves destruction that is permanent. Life involves difficulty and we all must walk through difficult times, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
On second thought I would say it is a mixed bag. There are some good things that happened up through 1970 with respect to civil rights for African Americans, but women as a voting block have done a lot of damage. Obviously, I care 0% about your opinion of me, but I did not have the historical timeline of everyting that happened in the 1900s in front me when I wrote that opinion. It was simply a thought written off the cuff.
I think you were grossly over exaggerating the supposed hypocrisy of pro-life people. Sure, there might be some whose concern ends at the birth of the child, but if you did some investigating I bet you’d find a lot of churches and other Christian organizations in your area doing a lot for the living. For example, around me the Christian women’s center doesn’t end their support of mothers after the birth of the child. For those on hard times there are plenty of food and shelter options provided by Christian organizations. In my county, there is an Interfaith Hospitality Network that provides shelter, food, and clothing to mothers and their children who would otherwise be homeless. There’s a Christian organization in our area that provides skills training to immigrant women so that they can get a job and provide for themselves and their families. There are jail and prison ministries. There are soups kitchens. My church provides Christmas “stores” for local elementary schools where low income parents can shop for free to be able to provide Christmas presents for their children, who otherwise might get nothing for Christmas. The list goes on and on. Do a little searching in your area and I bet you would come up with some examples of your own. As far as the billboards along the turnpike go, there are millions of people who think just like you. Why haven’t they put up billboards advocating for healthcare and childcare and the other things you desire? You criticize pro-life people for not continuing their concern after the birth of the child, but most pro-choice people show no concern for the child whether unborn or born. I don’t see pro-choice groups providing the human services that I see churches and Christian organizations providing.
While I obviously cannot speak for all prolife Christians the attitude expressed in the cartoon below is not atypical of that of a lot of political conservatives. I would note that the Republicans have a history of supporting cuts in the WIC program which is specifically intended to provide nutrition assistance for pregnant women and young children based on "fiscal responsibility". This is from last year. House Republicans’ Agriculture Appropriations Bill Would Cut WIC Benefits for 5 Million Participants, Put SNAP Benefits at Risk for 1 Million Older Adults | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities I would also add that conservatives have a history of supporting "family cap" rules in welfare programs. Under those rules additional benefits are not provided to women who have children while already on welfare. While the purpose of family cap rules is to punish irresponsible behavior on the part of the mother it is the children who suffer.
You underestimate the value of preaching. It is the lifeblood of a nation IMO, and the lack of solid preaching in our churches is probably the greatest reason for the decline of our nation. It would help a lot of people who are deceived into thinking that they are Christians if their denominations excommunicated their preachers and then replaced them with real gospel preachers! You can be offended by my words, but if your child goes to hell and you did not take the proper steps to hinder your child from going to hell then you failed your child. America has failed its children for several generations now.
One need only look at the legislation supported by “pro life” voters across the policy spectrum to know that support for children and families stops at birth. We have a poster here that blames the “decline” of the US on giving women the right to vote. It’s a trumpet call from the Christian Nationalists.
The language you use is very deceptive. There are those who help the poor from their own resources, and then there are those who watch Uncle Sam help the poor whilst claiming they do more to help the poor than those who actually devote their own resources to the poor. What Uncle Sam does isn't credited to you because his money is not your money. To the degree that you help the poor from your own resources that is the degree to which you support the poor. And FWIW if you were talking about me with respect to thinking that the demise of the nation happened because women got the right to vote...that is not true. There were problems with the country before that. I simply think women have greatly contributed to our current set of problems with their voting patterns. But that is also on the men too.
"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Considering the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, give us instructions on how to treat our slaves, it seems pretty clear the Bible isn't saying that slavery is wrong. As a side note, verse 22 of that same chapter talks about the punishment for injuring a pregnant woman so "that her fruit depart her". It isn't the same punishment as for causing someone's death.
So if pro-life people supposedly stop caring for children and families at birth, how do you explain all those examples that I gave of real pro-life people helping real living people?
