Freedom to Express Religion

Are there any Christian Nationalists in Congress?

 

I don't get it. I disagree with your claim that people here are painting all Christians as Christian nationalists. So as evidence, you point to a survey that says only about one-third of Americans are. Given that's less than half of the nation's Christians, that doesn't really validate your claim, does it?

 

To my knowledge there are a couple of them who would identify as such. We also have a few people who identify as Muslims as well.

My concern about either group having a hostile takeover of the US government is about the same. I am equally unconcerned about both groups.

 

Have any of the muslim legislators said that they want to ignore separation of church and state?

 

I think you two are speaking past one another. Much of what you consider to be Christianity is apostate non-Christianity claiming to be Christianity.

I think Q is talking about real Bible-believing Christians:

• belief in the trinity
• belief in the deity of Christ
• belief in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible
• belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ
• salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone

Once we are operating on a real legitimate definition of what constitutes a Christian, I would be willing to bet large swaths of those people you would identify as Christian Nationalists are really just Bible-believing Christians.

 

Tell you what - I won’t tell you what you think and you don’t tell me what I think.
Deal?

 

I’m not telling you what to think, but part of having legitimate discussion is contesting assertions we personally disagree with and dissecting that disagreement down to the root cause that is causing the disagreement.

Definitions of words matter, and often people operate on different definitions of the same word.

If you say Christian, but you mean:

a. Anyone who professes to be a Christian or professes to follow Jesus…

And Q says Christian and he means:

b. Anyone who is an authentic disciple of Christ according to the teachings of the Bible…

Then you are talking about radically different groups of people.

Your group could include the anti-Christ and the worst of all Christ’s enemies while his group does not.

 

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean it won't happen. Tennessee Tech is highly unlikely to beat Georgia, but who would have thought Michigan would ever lose to Appalachian State? Or Florida to GA Southern, or Florida State to Jacksonville State.

The US, along with the rest of the western world, has becoming more and more secular. As a result, there has been a backlash of more fervent religious types on the far right decrying the loss of morals and religion. As well as several high level politicians who talk about the US being a Christian national, which is the basis of Christian nationalism.

It's difficult to ascertain just how big the threat is, but someone who is atheist, I can tell you, the threat certainly feels real. Especially with Trump, who has threatened to put immigrants in mass concentration camps. Who's next after the immigrants? Will someone, someday write a poem that starts, "First, they came for the immigrants, and I said nothing...?"

Now, you can laugh off my fears if you wish. But try having a little empathy instead. Imagine how I feel when two members of Congress go off about the US should be Christian and they are pro Christian Nationalist.

 

In Islam, Taqiyya (Arabic: تقیة, romanized: taqiyyah, lit. 'prudence')[1][2] is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice.[1][3][4][5]Generally, taqiyya is the action of committing a sinful act (such as feigning unbelief) for a pious goal.[6]

Hiding one's beliefs has been a feature of Islamsince its earliest days, and is acknowledged by Muslims of virtually all persuasions.[7] However, the use of taqiyya varies, especially between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Sunni Muslims gained political supremacy over time and therefore only occasionally found the need to practice taqiyya. On the other hand, the minority Shia communities developed taqiyya as an instinctive method of self-preservation and protection in hostile environments.[8]

A related term is kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), which has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.[9][10] This practice is emphasized in Shi'ism whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.[3][11]

Taqiyya was initially practiced under duress by some of Muhammad's companions.[12] Later, it became particularly important for Shias due to their experience as a persecuted religious minority.[11][13] According to Shia doctrine, taqiyya is permissible in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[11] Taqiyya has also been politically legitimised, particularly in Twelver Shi'ism, to maintain unity among Muslims and fraternity among Shia clerics.[14][15]

Taqiyya - Wikipedia

Islam has a long history of lying, deception, and concealment as a tactic of religious holy war against the non-believers. It also has advocated violent revolution as a means to achieving its political aims and goals.

Look at 10/7. Israel was operating under the pretense that Hamas and Israel were working towards peace. All of it was a lie and a deception to wage holy war against Israel.

Islam is by far the more dangerous of the two. It is not even close.

As for Christian Nationalists advocating separation of church and state…I would need to see quotes of what you are talking about.

Does that mean advocating for Christian morality in US law? Or are we talking about ecclesiastical authorities wielding government power?

Separation of church and state originally meant separation of ecclesiastical authority from state authority.

Now in the twisted 21st century mind it means a moral state that upholds the sanctity of life is a state guilty of the union of church and state.

 

Greene has said she is a Christian Nationalist. Do you not believe her when she makes those statements?

 

So, no evidence, but that is just because they are hiding it?

Boebert has said "the church is supposed to direct the government". To mean, that seems different from separation of church and state, but you may interpret it how you like.

 

Not necessarily, but taqiyya does cast a shadow of doubt over any denials a Muslim would have regarding motives to overthrow democracy, and kitman casts a shadow of doubt over the silence of Muslims who might be holding back some aspects of their faith they would rather not talk about.

Christianity on the other hand says lying and deceit are sinful. So, the words of a Christian carry a little more weight than that of a Muslim due to the premium Christianity places on truth in direct comparison to Islam. It does not mean Christians always tell the truth. They don't, but there is no religious shield to hide behind if a Christian lies. A Christian who makes a practice of lying and deceit is a hypocrite. A Muslim who practices lying and deceit is not necessarily a hypocrite.

That is an interesting statement. It depends on what she means by "direct." A director is a boss, but a person who gives direction could be said to be a teacher or a helper. It all depends on the underlying meaning.

People need moral guidance, and I would argue that individuals and entities created by individuals are under compulsion to a higher authority to be moral people and moral entities. Even you to some degree believe this if you have moral objections to actions taken by government officials or government entities. Every thread complaining about Donald Trump's holiday tweets demonstrates every left-leaning poster believes this to be true on some level.

When we shrug our shoulders and say morality is irrelevant to government because of separation of church and state, then we get Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

And to some degree you could even say we get people like Lauren Boebert, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, etc...because we've said morality is irrelevant to government due to separation of church and state.

 

@philnotfil...MTG and Boebert. Is that it?

 

Not phil, but Speaker Johnson has made several statements as well.

 

As current legislators in addition to MTG and Greene, we also have Robert Aderholt, Paul Gosar, Barry Loudermilk, Rick Allen, Mary Miller, and Jeff Duncan who have made statements that our government should be run so that everyone would live according to their religious beliefs. There are plenty of religious legislators who let their religion guide them without having to make public pronouncements that unbelievers should be forced to live according to the religious teachings of those legislators (James Lankford, Nancy Mace, and Mitt Romney are great examples of this). Mike Johnson mostly stays on the right side of the line, but veers into that sphere from time to time.

We also have former Trump officials like Russell Vought and Michael Flynn who are jockeying for positions in the next Trump administration.

We just had the Alabama Supreme Court write an opinion that, in part, was based on the bible rather than on the laws of the state of Alabama. There are tons more public officials at the state and local level who could accurately be described as Christian Nationalists (Doug Mastriano comes to mind)

 

I could respect this take if the alarmism over an Islamic takeover and the subsequent installation of Sharia Law was of equal concern, but it is not because of politics.