Posting this over here because I wanted to hear from people who are more like me - read their Bible daily, attend church regularly, and follow Jesus. Anyone welcome to contribute in the usual civil manner of this board.

Although it appears the election has been decided, we'll see. No surprise that I lean conservative on pretty much everything, but I'm wondering if a good rear-kicking on the national level might be the catalyst to help the Republicans purge the Christian Nationalism that is taking over the party?

I see eye to eye on virtually nothing with the left, but this minority fringe of non-religious Republicans screaming "America is a Christian nation!" is getting us nowhere.

I have dozens of Christian friends from graduate school. We've all been strong in our faith for 30+ years, but we've been lost when it comes to voting our faith.

Politically: Trump lost in 2020 and all that caused was a double down effort by that part of the party. They do not believe he lost. It was all a steal. If he loses again, it'll be more of the same. We are on a rollercoaster where the most devout to their cause are pulling the rest of us along, and that is in both parties right now. The call of recreating a Christian nation is in response to the leftward lurch on the other side of the spectrum. Neither side is stopping. I would not vote against your beliefs hoping that Trump losing will help people see reason.

From the faith perspective: like in all things, pray about it. If you are vehemently against the left (i assume both fiscally and socially) you have to ask yourself if you can feel good about that vote. Let God work on you there.

I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Trump. I'm not sure what a Christian Nationalist is. In my experience it's usually used as a derogatory term to discredit people who vote for candidates like Trump.

America is a post-Christian nation, I have no desire for the government to try to be Christian. I want a government that operates per the constitution.

Trump is not that conservative in that sense but he's the best choice we have right now.

Frok said:

---

I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Trump. I'm not sure what a Christian Nationalist is. In my experience it's usually used as a derogatory term to discredit people who vote for candidates like Trump.

America is a post-Christian nation, I have no desire for the government to try to be Christian. I want a government that operates per the constitution.

Trump is not that conservative in that sense but he's the best choice we have right now.

---

I dunno, I mean what's wrong with that, a government that's Christian?

Christians converted emperors and kings historically. Land for the church was granted by tribal leaders, not purchased on the free market. Protection was granted from the reigning authorities, not as a result of a groundswell of opposition from the margins.

I'm not so sure Christian nationalism, as the slur goes, is all that misguided. I think the notion of church and state being separate is more anti-christian than not.

The government would do a poor job of teaching and representing Christianity. Leave it to the Church to do that, we don't need the government to help.

Christian = Follower of Christ

Nationalist = One who puts the interests of their own nation first

Christian Nationalist = Literally Hitler

Am I doing this right?

AGC said:

---

Frok said:

---

I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Trump. I'm not sure what a Christian Nationalist is. In my experience it's usually used as a derogatory term to discredit people who vote for candidates like Trump.

America is a post-Christian nation, I have no desire for the government to try to be Christian. I want a government that operates per the constitution.

Trump is not that conservative in that sense but he's the best choice we have right now.

---

I dunno, I mean what's wrong with that, a government that's Christian?

Christians converted emperors and kings historically. Land for the church was granted by tribal leaders, not purchased on the free market. Protection was granted from the reigning authorities, not as a result of a groundswell of opposition from the margins.

I'm not so sure Christian nationalism, as the slur goes, is all that misguided. I think the notion of church and state being separate is more anti-christian than not.

---

Agree. And from my reading of the Bible, God is sovereign over who is governing us. And all governments of the earth. And always has been.

The church grew fastest when oppressed by Roman or other authoritarian rule. Look at the explosive growth of Christianity in China.

The only issue I have with Christian nationalism is that the nation of Christians is Christianity. Not the US. We are sojourners, and our King is Christ.

Lots of American Christians are against the idea of separation of church and state and think that without it they'd be able to make the government more Christian. But I don't think that's what would happen. Power and influence work both ways and once you tear down that wall you give the government enhanced powers over religion. And the fact is that the percentage of people claiming to be Christian has long been decreasing in this country. So you tell me, do you want non-Christians setting laws that control what your church is able to teach?

Zobel said:

---

The only issue I have with Christian nationalism is that the nation of Christians is Christianity. Not the US. We are sojourners, and our King is Christ.

---

I agree with this completely, basically the Church, or the natural continuation of Israel.

I am just rejecting a term that I truly don't see as a political option, certainly not by either R's or D's, or any other political party. I see it as a way of trying to shame Christians from living their faith, or holding the politicians that proclaim the faith from governing that way.

Zobel said:

---

The only issue I have with Christian nationalism is that the nation of Christians is Christianity. Not the US. We are sojourners, and our King is Christ.

---

Agree.

Quote:

---

I dunno, I mean what's wrong with that, a government that's Christian?

Christians converted emperors and kings historically. Land for the church was granted by tribal leaders, not purchased on the free market. Protection was granted from the reigning authorities, not as a result of a groundswell of opposition from the margins.

I'm not so sure Christian nationalism, as the slur goes, is all that misguided. I think the notion of church and state being separate is more anti-christian than not.

---

History does not paint a pretty picture in that regard. We can see Popes making alliances and calling up armies for local defense and worldwide war, we can see Orthodox patriarchs getting killed and replaced by the Emperor's puppets, we can the the Wars of the Reformation where each side took any active role in the goverments of their side and killed anyone that didn't go along. America is a different animal, so I don't think it would look like that. But just taking one step down that road leads to the question, what kind of Christian nation? Is it going to be the Christianity of Pope Francis, the Christianity of the ultra-progressive United Methodist Church, the Christianity of the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Christianity of the Pentecostals? All of these look very different.

IMHO, it's not a good goal for Christianity. We're supposed to focus on saving ourselves and the other people of the world, not accumulating worldly wealth or power. Jesus was offered the whole world on a platter and turned it down, and I can't think of a better example to follow

Rocag said:

---

Lots of American Christians are against the idea of separation of church and state and think that without it they'd be able to make the government more Christian. But I don't think that's what would happen. Power and influence work both ways and once you tear down that wall you give the government enhanced powers over religion. And the fact is that the percentage of people claiming to be Christian has long been decreasing in this country. So you tell me, do you want non-Christians setting laws that control what your church is able to teach?

---

Funny enough, this is the argument used by devout Christians in the colonies during the development and ratification of the Constitution to keep religion separated from the state. Rhys Isaac's The Transformation of Virginia looks at the rise of Baptists and their fights with state power via the Anglican Church.

And those of us who aren't Christian are just supposed to happily go along with being second class citizens?

I grant, certainly, that "Christian nationalism" is a broad term. It can stretch a broad range of views, from those who merely dabble in, or assent to the tenets of American exceptionalism; to those who advocate for theocratic rule.

My problem, fundamentally, is with a pseudo-Christian minority that wants to use political (and if necessary, forceful) means to control the government, thereby demonstrating that their interest is in power, not in Christ.

An example, though we could use hundreds, is the issue of abortion. I know that many of us prayed for the end of abortion, voted for pro-life candidates, gave to crisis pregnancy centers, adopted children, etc., over many decades. Yet, it wasn't until 5+ years after Roe v. Wade that the Republican party began becoming pro-Life. W.A. Criswell, the pastor at Dallas 2nd Baptist, and the force behind the Baptist Study Bible that was prevalent in the SBC for years, was pro-abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. (Two side notes: His co-editor was Paige Patterson, now famous for covering up sexual assaults at Southwestern Theological Seminary; and Criswell was followed at 2nd Baptist by Robert Jeffress, who brought in the classic hymn "Make America Great Again."). Why did it take so long for the party to shift? Simple, the power-hungry leadership realized that racial segregation wasn't going to win enough votes, so they shifted to abortion as the core issue. Again, not because they were truly pro-life, but because they were pro power. This explains both why so many Republicans only paid lip service over the years, AND why the glorious over-turning of Roe v. Wade has led to so much strident in-fighting, as the "no exceptions" people don't really believe what they're saying, but they have to in order to continue being validated by the vocal minority that holds power. All of this power struggle prevents us from using the platform of pro-life positions in the wake of Dobbs to move toward a national discussion on personhood. People are so bent out of shape that they even call me pro-abortion. And the SBC has been a microcosm of this minority rule, deciding that they needed to wade into a declaration against in vitro fertilization. I guess that makes my 15-year-serving-youth-pastor-with-triplets pro-abortion, too. I think the SBC wants to rule with an iron fist, but its congregation will be fist-sized before long. Christian nationalism is preventing the Republican party from returning to its "congress shall make no law" strength - harmful to democracy, and disastrous to the church.

94chem said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

And those of us who aren't Christian are just supposed to happily go along with being second class citizens?

---

Some of our earliest pre-constitutional colonists were Christian nationalists (philosophically). Those were failed societies. This will fail, too, but I don't know how high the cost will be.,

---

I think it's odd that any Christian wouldn't already look around and see that secular governance has failed us, and honestly ask themselves, 'couldn't this be better?'

Edit: The notion of separation of church and state as you accept it is not a Christian norm by any means and what, 100-150 years old?

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

And those of us who aren't Christian are just supposed to happily go along with being second class citizens?

---

Some of our earliest pre-constitutional colonists were Christian nationalists (philosophically). Those were failed societies. This will fail, too, but I don't know how high the cost will be.,

---

I think it's odd that any Christian wouldn't already look around and see that secular governance has failed us, and honestly ask themselves, 'couldn't this be better?'

Edit: The notion of separation of church and state as you accept it is not a Christian norm by any means and what, 100-150 years old?

---

So should I just accept being a second class citizen so that you can get your ideal of a government + your faith?

94chem said:

---

I grant, certainly, that "Christian nationalism" is a broad term. It can stretch a broad range of views, from those who merely dabble in, or assent to the tenets of American exceptionalism; to those who advocate for theocratic rule.

My problem, fundamentally, is with a pseudo-Christian minority that wants to use political (and if necessary, forceful) means to control the government, thereby demonstrating that their interest is in power, not in Christ.

An example, though we could use hundreds, is the issue of abortion. I know that many of us prayed for the end of abortion, voted for pro-life candidates, gave to crisis pregnancy centers, adopted children, etc., over many decades. Yet, it wasn't until 5+ years after Roe v. Wade that the Republican party began becoming pro-Life. W.A. Criswell, the pastor at Dallas 2nd Baptist, and the force behind the Baptist Study Bible that was prevalent in the SBC for years, was pro-abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. (Two side notes: His co-editor was Paige Patterson, now famous for covering up sexual assaults at Southwestern Theological Seminary; and Criswell was followed at 2nd Baptist by Robert Jeffress, who brought in the classic hymn "Make America Great Again."). Why did it take so long for the party to shift? Simple, the power-hungry leadership realized that racial segregation wasn't going to win enough votes, so they shifted to abortion as the core issue. Again, not because they were truly pro-life, but because they were pro power. This explains both why so many Republicans only paid lip service over the years, AND why the glorious over-turning of Roe v. Wade has led to so much strident in-fighting, as the "no exceptions" people don't really believe what they're saying, but they have to in order to continue being validated by the vocal minority that holds power. All of this power struggle prevents us from using the platform of pro-life positions in the wake of Dobbs to move toward a national discussion on personhood. People are so bent out of shape that they even call me pro-abortion. And the SBC has been a microcosm of this minority rule, deciding that they needed to wade into a declaration against in vitro fertilization. I guess that makes my 15-year-serving-youth-pastor-with-triplets pro-abortion, too. I think the SBC wants to rule with an iron fist, but its congregation will be fist-sized before long. Christian nationalism is preventing the Republican party from returning to its "congress shall make no law" strength - harmful to democracy, and disastrous to the church.

---

Whatever the Republican Party's motivation for trying to attract pro lifers to it, is beside the point. It doesn't follow that pro-lifers are insincere.

You can throw out the theocratic rule end of the spectrum you gave for Christian Nationalism, because I don't know anyone, politician or not, who advocates for rule by clerics in America.

The tenets of Christian nationalism are 1. There's objective truth/good, and 2. The law is not hopelessly downstream of culture. It's a two way street. The law is educational and habit forming. The law should encourage virtuous pursuits and discourage vicious ones.

In a nutshell, we want to live in a Just society. Christian nationalism is NOT exactly the same as illiberalism or authoritarianism. It's not a wholesale rejection of authority, and it's not impractical either. Christians can reasonably disagree politically on HOW best to eradicate abortion, but we should agree that it ought to be forbidden because it's intrinsically evil, and violative of the most fundamental human right, and in every case the dignity of the human person. Like the purchase of people as property, and the commoditization of people generally as with IVF.

Quote:

---

The tenets of Christian nationalism are 1. There's objective truth/good, and 2. The law is not hopelessly downstream of culture. It's a two way street. The law is educational and habit forming. The law should encourage virtuous pursuits and discourage vicious ones.

---

Sorry, but if this was all you were calling for, it wouldn't be called "Christian nationalism." You're looking to impose very specific religious values and tests on a government that was designed to oppose religious tests.

Bob Lee said:

---

94chem said:

---

I grant, certainly, that "Christian nationalism" is a broad term. It can stretch a broad range of views, from those who merely dabble in, or assent to the tenets of American exceptionalism; to those who advocate for theocratic rule.

My problem, fundamentally, is with a pseudo-Christian minority that wants to use political (and if necessary, forceful) means to control the government, thereby demonstrating that their interest is in power, not in Christ.

An example, though we could use hundreds, is the issue of abortion. I know that many of us prayed for the end of abortion, voted for pro-life candidates, gave to crisis pregnancy centers, adopted children, etc., over many decades. Yet, it wasn't until 5+ years after Roe v. Wade that the Republican party began becoming pro-Life. W.A. Criswell, the pastor at Dallas 2nd Baptist, and the force behind the Baptist Study Bible that was prevalent in the SBC for years, was pro-abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. (Two side notes: His co-editor was Paige Patterson, now famous for covering up sexual assaults at Southwestern Theological Seminary; and Criswell was followed at 2nd Baptist by Robert Jeffress, who brought in the classic hymn "Make America Great Again."). Why did it take so long for the party to shift? Simple, the power-hungry leadership realized that racial segregation wasn't going to win enough votes, so they shifted to abortion as the core issue. Again, not because they were truly pro-life, but because they were pro power. This explains both why so many Republicans only paid lip service over the years, AND why the glorious over-turning of Roe v. Wade has led to so much strident in-fighting, as the "no exceptions" people don't really believe what they're saying, but they have to in order to continue being validated by the vocal minority that holds power. All of this power struggle prevents us from using the platform of pro-life positions in the wake of Dobbs to move toward a national discussion on personhood. People are so bent out of shape that they even call me pro-abortion. And the SBC has been a microcosm of this minority rule, deciding that they needed to wade into a declaration against in vitro fertilization. I guess that makes my 15-year-serving-youth-pastor-with-triplets pro-abortion, too. I think the SBC wants to rule with an iron fist, but its congregation will be fist-sized before long. Christian nationalism is preventing the Republican party from returning to its "congress shall make no law" strength - harmful to democracy, and disastrous to the church.

---

Whatever the Republican Party's motivation for trying to attract pro lifers to it, is beside the point.

---

No. No it's not. Look up Paul Pressler. Seriously. Do it.

The tentacles of power-hungry, morally bankrupt leaders go back to the origins of Moral Majority, and they still influence the marriage between the Rwpublican Party and evangelicals. If people such as yourself say "whatever the reason" to brush off history as recent as 40 years ago, no wonder it's easy to brush off history pertaining to the noble lost cause, Plessy vs Ferguson, Jim Crow, the KKK, Civil Rights, and just blame its mere mention on the CRT boogeyman.

Reading is your friend. You may be surprised what you find. Knowing where you've come from actually does matter.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The tenets of Christian nationalism are 1. There's objective truth/good, and 2. The law is not hopelessly downstream of culture. It's a two way street. The law is educational and habit forming. The law should encourage virtuous pursuits and discourage vicious ones.

---

Sorry, but if this was all you were calling for, it wouldn't be called "Christian nationalism." You're looking to impose very specific religious values and tests on a government that was designed to oppose religious tests.

---

I don't know how to respond when I tell you what I personally think and your response back is, "nuh uh".

Where is this Christian Nationalism push you see? I follow this stuff closely and it's simply not there.

On the other hand, there is a whole lot of degenerate, godlessness being pushed by the left by their political leaders.

94chem said:

---

Posting this over here because I wanted to hear from people who are more like me - read their Bible daily, attend church regularly, and follow Jesus. Anyone welcome to contribute in the usual civil manner of this board.

Although it appears the election has been decided, we'll see. No surprise that I lean conservative on pretty much everything, but I'm wondering if a good rear-kicking on the national level might be the catalyst to help the Republicans purge the Christian Nationalism that is taking over the party?

I see eye to eye on virtually nothing with the left, but this minority fringe of non-religious Republicans screaming "America is a Christian nation!" is getting us nowhere.

I have dozens of Christian friends from graduate school. We've all been strong in our faith for 30+ years, but we've been lost when it comes to voting our faith.

---

Christian Nationalism would be the best thing to happen to the country since 1776. I have zero clue why we would want to do such a thing, or why Christian nationalism is to be feared.

Exactly. I see no popular movement to suppress non-Christian's at all, least of all among Republican christian office-seekers. The obvious answer would be that the OP is referencing Trump, whose family of course includes several prominent non-Christians (jews), and whose former staff included the first openly gay cabinet official (not exactly appealing to the stereotype of 'Christian nationalists').

This is pretty absurd, imho. If one is a christian, one should first and foremost, in my opinion, be opposed to the evil that is infanticide. Second, ending silly endless wars and the death and devastation they bring to people across the globe would be a good thing. That means rooting for a GOP loss this cycle would be…counter productive.

Bob Lee said:

---

94chem said:

---

I grant, certainly, that "Christian nationalism" is a broad term. It can stretch a broad range of views, from those who merely dabble in, or assent to the tenets of American exceptionalism; to those who advocate for theocratic rule.

My problem, fundamentally, is with a pseudo-Christian minority that wants to use political (and if necessary, forceful) means to control the government, thereby demonstrating that their interest is in power, not in Christ.

An example, though we could use hundreds, is the issue of abortion. I know that many of us prayed for the end of abortion, voted for pro-life candidates, gave to crisis pregnancy centers, adopted children, etc., over many decades. Yet, it wasn't until 5+ years after Roe v. Wade that the Republican party began becoming pro-Life. W.A. Criswell, the pastor at Dallas 2nd Baptist, and the force behind the Baptist Study Bible that was prevalent in the SBC for years, was pro-abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. (Two side notes: His co-editor was Paige Patterson, now famous for covering up sexual assaults at Southwestern Theological Seminary; and Criswell was followed at 2nd Baptist by Robert Jeffress, who brought in the classic hymn "Make America Great Again."). Why did it take so long for the party to shift? Simple, the power-hungry leadership realized that racial segregation wasn't going to win enough votes, so they shifted to abortion as the core issue. Again, not because they were truly pro-life, but because they were pro power. This explains both why so many Republicans only paid lip service over the years, AND why the glorious over-turning of Roe v. Wade has led to so much strident in-fighting, as the "no exceptions" people don't really believe what they're saying, but they have to in order to continue being validated by the vocal minority that holds power. All of this power struggle prevents us from using the platform of pro-life positions in the wake of Dobbs to move toward a national discussion on personhood. People are so bent out of shape that they even call me pro-abortion. And the SBC has been a microcosm of this minority rule, deciding that they needed to wade into a declaration against in vitro fertilization. I guess that makes my 15-year-serving-youth-pastor-with-triplets pro-abortion, too. I think the SBC wants to rule with an iron fist, but its congregation will be fist-sized before long. Christian nationalism is preventing the Republican party from returning to its "congress shall make no law" strength - harmful to democracy, and disastrous to the church.

---

Whatever the Republican Party's motivation for trying to attract pro lifers to it, is beside the point. It doesn't follow that pro-lifers are insincere.

You can throw out the theocratic rule end of the spectrum you gave for Christian Nationalism, because I don't know anyone, politician or not, who advocates for rule by clerics in America.

The tenets of Christian nationalism are 1. There's objective truth/good, and 2. The law is not hopelessly downstream of culture. It's a two way street. The law is educational and habit forming. The law should encourage virtuous pursuits and discourage vicious ones.

In a nutshell, we want to live in a Just society. Christian nationalism is NOT exactly the same as illiberalism or authoritarianism. It's not a wholesale rejection of authority, and it's not impractical either. Christians can reasonably disagree politically on HOW best to eradicate abortion, but we should agree that it ought to be forbidden because it's intrinsically evil, and violative of the most fundamental human right, and in every case the dignity of the human person. Like the purchase of people as property, and the commoditization of people generally as with IVF.

---

I actually run in fairly theocratic circles among my friends, and embrace the philosophy myself, but what none of these hand waving alarmists fearing "Christian nationalism" ever admit is…….its totally in abstract. It's a thought experiment of what it would look like. It's akin to fantasizing about an American monarchy. None of us are working towards a theocracy or have any practical plans towards implementing one; it's just a "wouldn't it be cool if" topic when drinking beers and smoking cigars.

Most of us vote Republican and would be happy with voting for a Pro-Life version of Bill Clinton. I'm very happy with the new blend of European National Conservatism that is permeating the Republican Party. Social Conservatism mixed with Economically mixed policies.

What if I'm anti universal suffrage? Who do I vote for?

Zobel said:

---

What if I'm anti universal suffrage? Who do I vote for?

---

Funny enough. I spend about half my year in the UAE recently as I'm moving all my oil&gas manufacturing to Abu Dhabi, and they are absolutely dumbfounded by our elections.

"You're telling me every 4 years your entire tax structure, your business law, everything can change"

-yes

"That's horrible, how do you do business?"

-it's tough.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

94chem said:

---

I grant, certainly, that "Christian nationalism" is a broad term. It can stretch a broad range of views, from those who merely dabble in, or assent to the tenets of American exceptionalism; to those who advocate for theocratic rule.

My problem, fundamentally, is with a pseudo-Christian minority that wants to use political (and if necessary, forceful) means to control the government, thereby demonstrating that their interest is in power, not in Christ.

An example, though we could use hundreds, is the issue of abortion. I know that many of us prayed for the end of abortion, voted for pro-life candidates, gave to crisis pregnancy centers, adopted children, etc., over many decades. Yet, it wasn't until 5+ years after Roe v. Wade that the Republican party began becoming pro-Life. W.A. Criswell, the pastor at Dallas 2nd Baptist, and the force behind the Baptist Study Bible that was prevalent in the SBC for years, was pro-abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade. (Two side notes: His co-editor was Paige Patterson, now famous for covering up sexual assaults at Southwestern Theological Seminary; and Criswell was followed at 2nd Baptist by Robert Jeffress, who brought in the classic hymn "Make America Great Again."). Why did it take so long for the party to shift? Simple, the power-hungry leadership realized that racial segregation wasn't going to win enough votes, so they shifted to abortion as the core issue. Again, not because they were truly pro-life, but because they were pro power. This explains both why so many Republicans only paid lip service over the years, AND why the glorious over-turning of Roe v. Wade has led to so much strident in-fighting, as the "no exceptions" people don't really believe what they're saying, but they have to in order to continue being validated by the vocal minority that holds power. All of this power struggle prevents us from using the platform of pro-life positions in the wake of Dobbs to move toward a national discussion on personhood. People are so bent out of shape that they even call me pro-abortion. And the SBC has been a microcosm of this minority rule, deciding that they needed to wade into a declaration against in vitro fertilization. I guess that makes my 15-year-serving-youth-pastor-with-triplets pro-abortion, too. I think the SBC wants to rule with an iron fist, but its congregation will be fist-sized before long. Christian nationalism is preventing the Republican party from returning to its "congress shall make no law" strength - harmful to democracy, and disastrous to the church.

---

Whatever the Republican Party's motivation for trying to attract pro lifers to it, is beside the point. It doesn't follow that pro-lifers are insincere.

You can throw out the theocratic rule end of the spectrum you gave for Christian Nationalism, because I don't know anyone, politician or not, who advocates for rule by clerics in America.

The tenets of Christian nationalism are 1. There's objective truth/good, and 2. The law is not hopelessly downstream of culture. It's a two way street. The law is educational and habit forming. The law should encourage virtuous pursuits and discourage vicious ones.

In a nutshell, we want to live in a Just society. Christian nationalism is NOT exactly the same as illiberalism or authoritarianism. It's not a wholesale rejection of authority, and it's not impractical either. Christians can reasonably disagree politically on HOW best to eradicate abortion, but we should agree that it ought to be forbidden because it's intrinsically evil, and violative of the most fundamental human right, and in every case the dignity of the human person. Like the purchase of people as property, and the commoditization of people generally as with IVF.

---

I actually run in fairly theocratic circles among my friends, and embrace the philosophy myself, but what none of these hand waving alarmists fearing "Christian nationalism" ever admit is…….its totally in abstract. It's a thought experiment of what it would look like. It's akin to fantasizing about an American monarchy. None of us are working towards a theocracy or have any practical plans towards implementing one; it's just a "wouldn't it be cool if" topic when drinking beers and smoking cigars.

Most of us vote Republican and would be happy with voting for a Pro-Life version of Bill Clinton. I'm very happy with the new blend of European National Conservatism that is permeating the Republican Party. Social Conservatism mixed with Economically mixed policies.

---