nortex97 said:

---

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.

---

I have shared with you where I will be attending church tomorrow morning. May I ask where you will be going?

I am reading the books of I Samuel, Psalms, II Corinthians, and Mark right now. Would you mind sharing what you are studying?

In a few weeks I'll begin my 16th year of Bible Study Fellowship. Looking forward to Revelation. Plenty of room for people in Kingwood/Humble area!

barbacoa taco said:

---

it has a bunch of Christian Nationalist agenda items on there, and was written by people who espouse that ideology. It's a Christian Nationalist wishlist.

---

Which items are CN agenda items and which of the authors espouse Christian Nationalism?

I browsed through it, looking a bit more closely at the section on Defense since I worked in the Pentagon years ago. What I saw didn't appear to have anything whatsoever to do with CN, and the Defense section had some good ideas, although I did not agree with everything and thought that they left some good ideas out.

Of course, I wasn't on "red alert" for CN when I browsed it so may have missed a lot.

Quote:

---

There are a number of things. Gutting reproductive rights to truly extreme levels, banning or nearly banning IVF (the Alabama justice cited the Bible in the opinion), going backwards on LGBT rights, changing school curricula to reflect a Christian nationalist bias while downplaying the history people don't want to hear about, using tax dollars to elevate religious schools, gutting voting rights and crafting laws to not explicitly favor one group but clearly have the effect of favoring that group (and often it's white Christians who benefit from it).

---

It looks like you have a strong set of moral values. What basis do you have for imposing them on those who disagree with you?

ETA: And by the way, those positions are not "Christian Nationalism", but rather historical conservative positions. Although you have not described the positions accurately or fairly.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

One thing to understand about Christian Nationalism is that it is by its nature a political movement, not a religious one. It seeks to inject faith (usually an extreme version of it) into governance and to completely undermine the First Amendment and religious freedom.

I believe Christian Nationalism is a dangerous ideology for a few reasons. First, it intertwines faith and patriotism to a point where the United States is perceived as a godlike figure. Any criticism of it is seen as heresy. Celebrations of it almost seem religious in nature. Think a combo of 4th of July and Easter. Like those political rallies that sometimes happen at evangelical megachurches. Second, its rigid adherence to Christian doctrine leads to extreme laws and often does so at the expense of others.

I could write an essay on why it's an abhorrent ideology, but one main point I always come back to is it assumes that the only real Americans are Christians and any non-Christians should be treated as second class.

As for Trump, it's clear he's not a Christian, but he is fully on board with enforcing hard right Christian nationalism on the country, because it has far and away won him the evangelical vote. He can pretend to not be on board with Project 2025 but everyone knows if a GOP congress passes any of those agenda items he'll sign it without thinking twice.

---

Maybe I understand Christian Nationalism different, but my idea of Christian Nationalism isn't to intertwine faith and patriotism, it's to run the nation according to Christian principles; with the understanding that we are Christians first and Americans second.

---

But that's not how the country is meant to be run. You can be a Christian first and American second in your personal capacity but you shouldn't try to enforce that on everyone else. And that's what Christian nationalism is: a rigid enforcement of a Christian doctrine and worldview.

Quote:

---

I also have zero clue how you can think Trump is enforcing hard right Christian nationalism, this sounds like a talking point from the hysterical media. What about him is hard right? He's pro-choice, He's fine with gay marriage, and unfortunately, while I am a HUGE fan of Project 2025, Trump isn't. He doesn't even pay lip service to being a conservative. JD Vance is 50 times the conservative he is.

---

I will say there are other figures who I see as much more threatening (in this regard) than Trump. But Trump has and will elevate them, no doubt. Look at those megachurch pastors who are friends with Trump (like Robert Jeffress) and undoubtedly influence his policy decisions. I actually think it's a much greater threat at the state level.

There are a number of things. Gutting reproductive rights to truly extreme levels, banning or nearly banning IVF (the Alabama justice cited the Bible in the opinion), going backwards on LGBT rights, changing school curricula to reflect a Christian nationalist bias while downplaying the history people don't want to hear about, using tax dollars to elevate religious schools, gutting voting rights and crafting laws to not explicitly favor one group but clearly have the effect of favoring that group (and often it's white Christians who benefit from it).

I also think there are ancillary effects. For example, people saying "we shouldn't try to protect the environment, because God is looking out for us/the rapture will happen soon" and using that logic to completely gut environmental protections.

I'm not anti-Christian. But I am anti Christianity infusing itself into our laws and government.

---

If a politician takes a stance because his Christian worldview informs his politics, so he thinks it's the right thing to do, how else should politicians govern? It seems like what you would say is, we shouldn't pass broad public policy that aligns well with Christian social mores, precisely BECAUSE they align well with or stem from Christianity.

Forget about Christianity for a second. If gay marriage is bad. For society and the people who engage in it, why should it be permitted?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

There are a number of things. Gutting reproductive rights to truly extreme levels, banning or nearly banning IVF (the Alabama justice cited the Bible in the opinion), going backwards on LGBT rights, changing school curricula to reflect a Christian nationalist bias while downplaying the history people don't want to hear about, using tax dollars to elevate religious schools, gutting voting rights and crafting laws to not explicitly favor one group but clearly have the effect of favoring that group (and often it's white Christians who benefit from it).

---

It looks like you have a strong set of moral values. What basis do you have for imposing them on those who disagree with you?

ETA: And by the way, those positions are not "Christian Nationalism", but rather historical conservative positions. Although you have not described the positions accurately or fairly.

---

And what I'm saying is it's more than that. Those are just political positions, albeit extreme conservative ones. Look at the name. Christian NATIONALISM. That is, an extreme form of patriotism that elevates the state (or nation) at the expense of others. In this case, at the expense of non Christians.

And while we're at it, which Christian denomination is going to be the ruling power? Baptists? Catholics? Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Well, so far it's looking while nondenominational evangelicals (who are mostly white). So they get to make the rules based on what THEY see as adherent to Christian doctrine.

And while we're on the topic of nationalism, remember what I said in an earlier post about seeing the USA as a godlike entity. Criticism of it, or defiance of US law or tradition is also seen as defiance of God. So let's take schools for example. School curricula have been heavily politicized due to Christian nationalism. We're whitewashing history big time and pushing the false narrative that America was founded as a Christian nation, which it was not. Which leads to either downplaying or complete elimination of unpleasant or inconvenient subjects in the classroom.

- America having an explicitly secular form of government? Gone
- The true evils of slavery and the widespread acceptance of it? Heavily downplayed
- The struggles of Black Americans to be accepted by society from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era? glossed over
- The evils committed by the American regime abroad during the 20th century, a-la the European empires that came before it? How dare you even bring that up you communist?

And this is just one example. I just cite it because it's highly relevant in places like Texas. Christian Nationalism is at its heart a big government, authoritarian movement. And it's not how one's faith should be practiced.

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'd say Trump is the only choice. Best has nothing to do with our candidates these days. Trump certainly also does not convey 'Christian Nation' himself. I do believe getting back to the core values that are based in in Judeo Christian virtues is not a bad thing and the irony that its trying to led by some one who personally eschews morality is said. I do also believe in following our Constitution and not having the government force any religion on anyone.

My Christian faith does not rely on a political party and certainly not a certain political candidate. God is in control, so the best thing we can do is vote our conscience and love everyone as we are called to. And even if that is too hard for some, at the very least we are called to not treat them poorly.

I vote for those who can advance conservative policies. I do not support, as individuals, either candidate.

nortex97 said:

---

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.

---

I agree with this. My issue is that we are hoping to make conservative gains by a GOP win, but I'm not sure people are seeing what is happening in tandem with that. I cannot be convinced that Trump and his family are doing any of this out of Christian beliefs or altruism. So while I hope we get what we are hoping for, we are also lowering the bar of the types of candidates we will settle for as long as we HOPE their administration will make the conservative gains we desire. The mantra of the GOP of late the last few years seems to have become "we're bad but not nearly as bad as the liberal left". We will lie, fabricate, demean, and pretend its out of necessity or supported by our Christian beliefs. And doing this because its the 'only way to beat the left' is anti-thetical to our faith. I know there are some really good faithful Christians in politics (Senator Lankford comes to mind), but these days the minute they try to do the right thing, rooted in their faith, they are eviscerated if it is in opposition to Trumps whims. Which is what happened to Lankford.

So, I am not too worried about Christian nationalism in the next 4 years.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

If a politician takes a stance because his Christian worldview informs his politics, so he thinks it's the right thing to do, how else should politicians govern? It seems like what you would say is, we shouldn't pass broad public policy that aligns well with Christian social mores, precisely BECAUSE they align well with or stem from Christianity.

Forget about Christianity for a second. If gay marriage is bad. For society and the people who engage in it, why should it be permitted?

---

I think that for many Christians, there is a distinction between allowing religion to inform their views and allowing religion to directly affect policy.

To build off your example - There are many Christians that believe that gay marriage is bad, but who also believe that it should be legal. My take is that these Christians do not feel it is government's responsibility to legislate who we can and cannot marry.

To me, the question comes down to how we decide to view religious freedom. If one's idea of religious freedom is freedom to only practice one designated religion. . . . well, that isn't really religious freedom.

I don't think anyone sees an issue with passing broad public policy that happens to align with Christianity. I think the issue only arises when that policy is seen as favoring Christianity or reducing the freedoms of non-Christians.

---

But on topics where the government can't be silent. Marriage will either be between a man and a woman for the procreation and education of children, which is what Christians believe, or it won't. How can a Christian politician advocate for anything but the Christian understanding of what marriage? Aka, marriage.

Trans issues. Same thing. We either will allow people to teach our children a distorted view of the human person, or we won't. Either parents who allow children to take sterilization drugs are abusing their children, or they aren't. The government has to say something.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Marriage will either be between a man and a woman for the procreation and education of children, which is what Christians believe, or it won't.

---

Except that it is for the majority of people and is not for a minority. Why is that some problem that requires the government to step into people's private lives to force them to conform to your beliefs? If an individual is sacrosanct with rights, then the government should protect their rights rather than trying to force them into the box preferred by your religious ideals.

---

I agree rights should be protected. I just don't fashion them for myself out of thin air.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

But on topics where the government can't be silent. Marriage will either be between a man and a woman for the procreation and education of children, which is what Christians believe, or it won't. How can a Christian politician advocate for anything but the Christian understanding of what marriage? Aka, marriage.

---

Is being a Christian incompatible with allowing others the freedom to reject Christianity?

---

No. Is the government not pretending gay couplings are in the same kind of relationship as those capable of begetting children incompatible with freedom?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

But on topics where the government can't be silent. Marriage will either be between a man and a woman for the procreation and education of children, which is what Christians believe, or it won't. How can a Christian politician advocate for anything but the Christian understanding of what marriage? Aka, marriage.

---

Is being a Christian incompatible with allowing others the freedom to reject Christianity?

---

No. Is the government not pretending gay couplings are in the same kind of relationship as those capable of begetting children incompatible with freedom?

---

Violates equal rights and equal protection.

---

This is true in the same way men's inability to gestate children is violative of equal rights.

Bob Lee said:

---

No. Is the government not pretending gay couplings are in the same kind of relationship as those capable of begetting children incompatible with freedom?

---

Is your concern that you think it is illegal for you to believe gay relationships are different? Or is it your concern that the government does not explicitly endorse one arrangement over another. Or something else?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

This is true in the same way men's inability to gestate children is violative of equal rights.

---

The inability of biological men to have children is based on a physical limitation. The ability of two people of the same sex to have a relationship (call it whatever term you want) is not limited similarly. I don't think your comparison works well.

---

I'm married. And I have relationships with people that could not be categorized as marriages. The inability of 2 men to consummate a marriage (as opposed to sticking an extremity into his buddy's orifice), or have children under any circumstances, is a physical limitation that precludes marriage.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

No. Is the government not pretending gay couplings are in the same kind of relationship as those capable of begetting children incompatible with freedom?

---

Is your concern that you think it is illegal for you to believe gay relationships are different? Or is it your concern that the government does not explicitly endorse one arrangement over another. Or something else?

---

I think it's not harmless to pretend different categories of things are exactly the same and exactly equal in value if it's not true.

Bob Lee said:

---

I'm married. And I have relationships with people that could not be categorized as marriages. The inability of 2 men to consummate a marriage (as opposed to sticking an extremity into his buddy's orifice), or have children under any circumstances, is a physical limitation that precludes marriage.

---

Are you okay with full legality and all equal legal standings of same sex relationships - just provided that they don't use the term 'marriage'?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

I think it's not harmless to pretend different categories of things are exactly the same and exactly equal in value if it's not true.

---

For a personal worldview, fine. But, what is government to do? What are the standards by which government is to evaluate and assign value?

I would suspect that you do not think your faith and my secularism are the same or of the same value. I have no issue with your holding this as a personal belief. But, should this translate into lesser rights or freedoms? Is my freedom of religion lesser than yours because my 'religion' is of lesser value in your opinion?

---

No, you should have the same freedoms I do. The question always is who should win out in a conflict of wills. Which philosophy is freeing, and which one stifles freedom. If a woman prostitutes herself to afford her heroin addiction, in large part because she lives somewhere those are permitted, is she more or less free than a woman who has managed to avoid the near occasion of sin because she lives somewhere those things are forbidden?

If someone's "religion" includes prostitution and drug use, but I want to raise children where those things aren't allowed, who should win?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Marriage will either be between a man and a woman for the procreation and education of children, which is what Christians believe, or it won't.

---

Except that it is for the majority of people and is not for a minority. Why is that some problem that requires the government to step into people's private lives to force them to conform to your beliefs? If an individual is sacrosanct with rights, then the government should protect their rights rather than trying to force them into the box preferred by your religious ideals.

---

It's a weird world when someone thinks people are atomized individuals that should accrue all benefits instead of viewing them as part of a broader society.