Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Still enjoy bashing Christians I see rolleyes

Merry Christmas PS.


Merry Christmas GM.

Yes I enjoy bashing Christian Nationalists who use the Christian religion to further their own personal political agenda. Our fore fathers saw the need for separation of church and state. I will always stand by those convictions.

Besides where were all those Christian Nationalists when the Jews where being bashed and slaughtered? Where are all those Christians when the Taliban and Iranians are bashing women and killing them for not wearing what they want or learning to read and write? Where are all those Christians when Putin’s war is raging down on other innocent Christians. Never mind I know the answer. They are cozy warm and comfortable on Christmas Day in murica complaining about political issues that only effect their little world.


What is an Evangelical?

Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

What do Christian nationalists want that is different from normal Christian engagement in politics?

Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation and they want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country. Some have advocated for an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage, others to reinstitute prayer in public schools. Some work to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula, including that America has a special relationship with God or has been “chosen” by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions specifically to prevent a change to American religious and ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Some want to empower the government to take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior.

Big difference IMO between the two. I have not said anything about your stance on Christian Nationalists, only about your stance on Evangelical Christians and your lumping one race together (Only white Evangelicals) as all bad. That's no different than somebody say all blacks are bad, or all Mexicans are bad. It's just wrong bro.

So now we need to be politically correct to White Evangelical Christian Nationalists because calling them the scum they've proven to be in the past 14+ years may hurt their feelings? Snowflakes. Who cares if they don't like it after the BS they've brought on this country.

My wife attends an evangelical church and has been a member of two churches for the last several years. She went there after being raised catholic because she divorced her first husband after he got another woman pregnant. The church expected her to jump through a bunch of hoops, pay some fee, and treat her like hell when he was the one that trashed their marriage. It wasn't ex-communication, but it wasn't far from it. She didn't go to church at all for roughly 20 years after that.

All evangelicals are not bad, but the hate, bigotry, and feeling of supremacy damn sure runs deep with the White Christian Nationalist Trump-loving Evangelicals. I despise that 'type' of Christian, and seeing MTG and Bobbert claim they are the REAL AMERICA while they try to turn us into a damn theocracy disgusts me. GOD only exists in their minds to keep them in power and to invoke against their enemies. Where I'm from, we call them trash.

I don't care who you pray to or what religion you follow until you try some crap as they have with Roe, or think they have the right to push their NONSENSICAL beliefs on others. Then I'm fighting mad, and they are ALL STRAIGHT UP TRASH.

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 12/26/22 11:46 PM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you don't question the statement but reject it because of who posted it? That seems like a contradiction in terms.
No. My comment is based on many posts over the years. I didn't just decide to reject his comments on the subject.

I don't formulate those decisions that fast.


Good Luck with that description.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
Good luck to you too.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you don't question the statement but reject it because of who posted it? That seems like a contradiction in terms.
No. My comment is based on many posts over the years. I didn't just decide to reject his comments on the subject.

I don't formulate those decisions that fast.

That’s called prejudice. Not surprised.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Quote
Ok ….tell me why White Christian nationalist who call themselves Christian evangelicals want to insert their Christian beliefs into the federal government to become a Christian nation only where freedom of religion and freedom of speech now exist?

You will need to ask a white Christian nationalist for that answer. Since I am not one, and I don't know any. If I had to guess I would say they want everybody to think like them. Just like many athiests want their beliefs to be followed by everybody and they want freedom from religion, and no free speech by Christians. I personally don't agree with either of them.

I had a great Christmas, I hope you and your family did as well bud. thumbsup


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
Free speech is something totally different than inflicting your beliefs to the masses through legislation turning your religious beliefs into laws.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So you don't question the statement but reject it because of who posted it? That seems like a contradiction in terms.
No. My comment is based on many posts over the years. I didn't just decide to reject his comments on the subject.

I don't formulate those decisions that fast.

That’s called prejudice. Not surprised.

LOL...no it isn't. It is called formulating an opinion on a person based on many previous experiences. You also need to note I said on this topic. As of yet I don't just summarily dismiss you when you post, yet posts such as this one tend to push me in that direction.

Based on your posts over the years, I would counter that the evidence is pretty strong that you are prejudiced against Christians, and no, I am not going to go back and look them up. Anybody who reads the board doesn't need me to go look up old posts.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,322
Likes: 79
T
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
T
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,322
Likes: 79
I haven't read the whole thread but the United States was founded upon Christian nationalism, freedom of religion, or whatever you choose to worship.

God was a huge part of the early stages of the country and still is. Its also crucial to define what nationalism is and is not.

It is:
1. Doing what's best for YOUR country first and foremost
2. Passing, signing into law, things that benefit your country
If something hurts your country then don't do it, such as agreeing to certain treaties or global programs. That is a no no of it hurts or takes advantage of your country.
3. Minding your own countries business in most situations.
4. Something I support.

It isnt:
1. White power
2. A master Race
3. Selfish
4. Providing military support for every country when it's not warranted.


I believe religion is a good thing and makes people moral and kind. You shouldn't be forced to follow one though, you should be able to do whatever you want. If you have TOO much religion guiding everything then you become a theocracy, and that's not good for anybody.


Find what you love and let it kill you.

-Charles Bukowski
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
I believe religion "can be" a good thing but that's certainly not always the case. It all depends on who you are listening to. Many religious leaders have led people astray. Even two major religions, the Southern Baptists and Catholics have shown that they were willing to cover up child sex offenders in their leadership. I thinking lumping into a blanket statement of "religion good" or "religion bad" is far too simplistic of an approach to the question.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Quote
God was a huge part of the early stages of the country and still is.

Kind of….

Jefferson called his version of the New Testament "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." The Smithsonian exhibit includes one of the Bibles that Jefferson cut apart, as well as the one he created from his pasted clippings.

With his rendering, Jefferson offered a New Testament narrative he found preferable to the original.





https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/living/america-christian-nation/index.html



If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding “no.”

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

In a short span of 16 years (1775-1791), the nation was transformed from maintaining religious establishments in nine of 13 colonies to achieving disestablishment at the national level and in 10 new states (or 11, depending on how one views Vermont).

At the same time, the United States became the first nation in history to abolish religious disqualifications from officeholding and civic engagement. The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power.

If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still “no.”

Many of the leading founders were theological liberals who approached religion from a rational perspective.

Even though we have come to appreciate that other founders held more conventional Christian beliefs, all of them, including many clergy of the day, perceived little conflict between their religious faith and Enlightenment natural rights.

By the time of the Revolution, ideas of providence and of America’s millennial role had been modified, if not secularized, by Enlightenment rationalism.

If Benjamin Franklin, the only self-professed deist among the leading founders, could believe in God’s general providential plan for the United States, then the ubiquitous references to God’s interposing providence tell us little about the influence of distinctive religious thought on the founding generation.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,322
Likes: 79
T
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
T
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,322
Likes: 79
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I believe religion "can be" a good thing but that's certainly not always the case. It all depends on who you are listening to. Many religious leaders have led people astray. Even two major religions, the Southern Baptists and Catholics have shown that they were willing to cover up child sex offenders in their leadership. I thinking lumping into a blanket statement of "religion good" or "religion bad" is far too simplistic of an approach to the question.
.

Unfortunately anything can be misconstrued when you have bad actors at hand. False prophets or people with bad intentions shouldn't be a reason to say that a said religion is bad though. Now, if the teachings\text of the religion is evil, preaches misdeeds then that's another matter.

I went back to the first post of page 1 and still couldn't find the "question" at hand. Is it if Christian Nationalism is a good thing? If its being pushed or accepted by members of the GOP? Are people somehow trying to paint Nationalism a bad thing? Sorry, I'm not getting it.


Find what you love and let it kill you.

-Charles Bukowski
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Quote
So now we need to be politically correct to White Evangelical Christian Nationalists because calling them the scum they've proven to be in the past 14+ years may hurt their feelings? Snowflakes. Who cares if they don't like it after the BS they've brought on this country.

Hate the sin not the sinner poke and no I don't expect you to be PC. I'm sure not.



Quote
I don't care who you pray to or what religion you follow until you try some crap as they have with Roe, or think they have the right to push their NONSENSICAL beliefs on others. Then I'm fighting mad, and they are ALL STRAIGHT UP TRASH.

I see if politicians vote the way you want then they are great. If they vote the way others want then they are trash. rolleyes


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Quote
So now we need to be politically correct to White Evangelical Christian Nationalists because calling them the scum they've proven to be in the past 14+ years may hurt their feelings? Snowflakes. Who cares if they don't like it after the BS they've brought on this country.

Hate the sin not the sinner poke and no I don't expect you to be PC. I'm sure not.



Quote
I don't care who you pray to or what religion you follow until you try some crap as they have with Roe, or think they have the right to push their NONSENSICAL beliefs on others. Then I'm fighting mad, and they are ALL STRAIGHT UP TRASH.

I see if politicians vote the way you want then they are great. If they vote the way others want then they are trash. rolleyes

Murica Christian Nationalists are straight up trash. And politicians that are Christian Nationalists are even worse. And their chosen one is the freaking devil.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
Originally Posted by tastybrownies
I went back to the first post of page 1 and still couldn't find the "question" at hand. Is it if Christian Nationalism is a good thing? If its being pushed or accepted by members of the GOP? Are people somehow trying to paint Nationalism a bad thing? Sorry, I'm not getting it.

As with religion itself, none of this can be painted with a broad brush. There are certainly a portion of the GOP who promote their brand of Christian Nationalism. And actually one doesn't have to paint Nationalism as a bad thing. The picture paints itself.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Quote
I would counter that the evidence is pretty strong that you are prejudiced against Christians

You are wrong. I’ll admit I’m prejudice towards Christian Nationalists or any other citizen or politician who wants to incorporate their personal religious ideologies onto every other citizen, government, and public schools. Whether they be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or atheist. I’m prejudice against any entity that threatens the separation of church and state in this USA. See it’s not hard to admit your prejudices. You should try it.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
In my time I have been able to narrow it down to I am prejudiced against ass wholes. That way no group is singled out and all are included. They infest the entire spectrum of humanity.

I also don't like to eat liver. There is no such thing as good liver. I hate it all, even if I have never tried it. Coconut comes in a close 2nd.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: PerfectSpiral
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 122
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 122
Nationalism is not a bad thing. We should have pride in our Country, and we should put our Country first above the needs of other countries. Being Christian is not a bad thing either. Most Christians are good law-abiding citizens. I think the Global Elitists are the much bigger problem. They don't just put their needs first they demand compliance in all. Being a Christian is a free will expression of love. No demands, everyone has the right to decide where they want to spend their eternity. I don't like when our politicians are strong armed or give in to global demands.


Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
I think something is getting lost in the translation. First, nationalism is what caused us to sit back and refuse to enter into WW2 until we came under attack by Japan. Often times what some call nationalism is actually isolationism. Being proud to be an American, hell, for that matter wanting America to do better isn't a bad thing. But being proud to be an American or of America isn't nationalism. I think wanting everyone to have healthcare, housing and be fed are very much Christian values. At least according to, once again, the Bible I read. And sometimes people can't seem to understand that getting involved in things that aren't directly happening in America is in America's best interests. And while you speak of "global demands" I'm not quite sure what it is you're referring to? You see, as a people we sat back and watched our corporations move jobs overseas. As of now there aren't enough clothes made in America to clothe our people. There aren't enough semi conductors produced here to fulfill the manufacture enough vehicles, computers and phones to supply America. I could go on with a huge list of products we depend on coming from overseas. At the time these corporations were moving these jobs overseas nobody seemed to think of it in terms of national security. Maybe some are beginning to understand it now. So whether one likes it or not, we are tied into the global economy.

I know the standard line people use in response. "Well if Labor costs and environmental regulations weren't as high and restrictive here they wouldn't have moved those jobs." I ask in return, did Levi lower the cost of their jeans when those jobs moved overseas? Did the cost of Carhardt go down when they moved those jobs overseas? No, in fact none of the goods that manufacturers moved overseas saw a penny in cost reductions to the American people. And now look at the situation we are in.

As for "Most Christians are good law-abiding citizens" I think that's a pretty big generalization. I don't think that's the case because the Bible I read says as humans we are all sinners. Being a Christian does not put you in some special category that protects you from being a sinner. I would say that most Christians strive to be better people because of their faith but to some degree even that can be misleading. There are many people that are not religious or belong to different faiths that try just as hard to be the best people they can be. They give to charities and do volunteer work. Christianity in no way holds a monopoly on "good law abiding citizens".


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 122
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 122
Never said it did hold that monopoly. Just said being a Christian is a good thing. If you truly strive to be like Christ, then you're going to be law abiding. Yes, I agree, there are good people of many different faiths. I understand this Country does have interests outside of our borders. But our citizens need and wants should come first inside our borders thru our own policies. I do however think that the global elitists are a huge problem. They do not have our countries best interests in mind. They have what is best for themselves in mind. Our leaders should not be bowing to their demands or even giving in to their demands.


Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
I really don't disagree with you overall. But once again I think there's a difference in actual Christians and self professed Christians. Many, especially when it comes to evangelical and nationalist Christians spread more a message of fear, hate and distrust than they do anything else. I don't feel labeling ones self as Christian actually means someone is Christian. I feel that's where the biggest misunderstanding here is.

And I'm not quite sure who it is you're referring to when you say "global elites"? When corporations sent our jobs overseas, did they have our countries best interests in mind? Let's face it, this nation is based on capitalism. And I'm not an opponent of capitalism but it's just like anything else. Without the proper checks and balances it too can be an abusive system. So with our own nation being built on the principal that profits and shareholders reign supreme, who is it that actually has our nations best interests in mind? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I ask again, who is and what exactly do you mean by "global elites"? And if your sticking point is that they don't have America's best interest in mind and our own capitalist system puts profits and themselves first, are you willing to expand your list?


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Originally Posted by Day of the Dawg
Never said it did hold that monopoly. Just said being a Christian is a good thing. If you truly strive to be like Christ, then you're going to be law abiding. Yes, I agree, there are good people of many different faiths. I understand this Country does have interests outside of our borders. But our citizens need and wants should come first inside our borders thru our own policies. I do however think that the global elitists are a huge problem. They do not have our countries best interests in mind. They have what is best for themselves in mind. Our leaders should not be bowing to their demands or even giving in to their demands.

None of our elected leaders should be bowing to the demands of any world leaders. Especially you know who.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 48
H
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
H
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 48
Who's bowing to whom....don't get it. Current world problem, Ukraine - we are bankrolling a war against Russian aggression- I don't see thousand of Americans in streets complaining about our billions going to another country. I hate it, war, and don't know if I support our open wallet.

Christian nationalism- dislike term- my memory- two basic Christian rules- 1- Love God with whole heart and mind- 2 Love your neighbor as yourself--- Christ was a refugee just like folks crossing our borders- do you love them or want them thrown in jail? WWJD.


"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Just one example…Lindsay Graham a known Christian Nationalist or what ever you want to call him, consistently bowing to you know who. And I can name a bunch more. But I think you know who, and what we’re talking about here when it comes to Christian Nationalists wanting to relegate and govern the USA under one region. Conveniently their religion. And it has nothing to do with our borders or the Ukraine.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Hall of Famer
Online
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,120
Likes: 204
Originally Posted by hitt
Christian nationalism- dislike term- my memory- two basic Christian rules- 1- Love God with whole heart and mind- 2 Love your neighbor as yourself--- Christ was a refugee just like folks crossing our borders- do you love them or want them thrown in jail? WWJD.

1, Christian Nationalists want to rule the country under their religion and force everyone to follow their (christian nationalist) beliefs.

2, While you describe the 2 basic tenants of being a good Christian, most Christian Nationalists don't live those beliefs. I find that the people I would refer to as a Christian Nationalist talk a good game but are actually some of the furthest from your Christian rules in their actions.


People who lack accountability think everything is an attack
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,474
Likes: 795
I don't get the fuss.

This country is full of special interest groups trying to promote their cause and agenda.

Blacks have their cause.
Jews have their cause.
Homosexuals have their cause.
Women have their cause.
Gun owners have their cause.

The list goes on and on.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Just gonna put this here for all to view and decide for themselves

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/donald-trump-evangelicals-break-up


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
I don't get the fuss.

This country is full of special interest groups trying to promote their cause and agenda.

Blacks have their cause.
Jews have their cause.
Homosexuals have their cause.
Women have their cause.
Gun owners have their cause.

The list goes on and on.


So Blacks and women are now special interest groups? Are you human?…… is that a special interest group? Ahh….. so the KKK and white supremacy groups can be considered legitimate special interest groups as well. I get it now.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 56
N
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
N
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 56
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/27/apocalypse-coming-christian-nationalism-00079317


‘There Is a Real Sense That the Apocalypse Is Coming’
A former evangelical tracks the rise of white Christian nationalism — and looks ahead to where the movement goes next.

Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump join in prayer outside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump join in prayer with Jeremy LaPointe of Lumberton, Texas (holding cross), outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. | Mike Theiler/Reuters, via Redux

By IAN WARD

01/27/2023 04:30 AM EST

Ian Ward is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine.

When Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — many of them carrying Christian symbols like crucifixes, statues of the Virgin Mary and even life-sized portraits of Jesus Christ — a terrible thought occurred to Bradley Onishi: “Could I have been there?”

For much of his young adult life, Onishi had been steeped in the very same mixture of religiosity and radical far-right politics that was on display at the Capitol. After growing up in a secular household in Orange County, California, Onishi joined an evangelical megachurch at age 14. During high school, he led prayer meetings during lunch break and handed out anti-abortion pamphlets to his classmates. By the time he was 20, he had married his high school sweetheart, taken a job as a full-time youth minister and made plans to enter the seminary.



Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter.


“I wasn’t just a member of a church. I was a leader, and somebody who gave everything that I had to faith and to my community,” Onishi says today.

In college, though, as Onishi began to learn more about the history of American evangelicalism, he discovered that the theology he had embraced as a teenager wasn’t merely a reflection of eternal biblical truths. It was also the product of a particular style of conservative Christian politics. Eventually, he came to view evangelicalism as inextricably intertwined with American nationalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and xenophobia. Eleven years after joining the church, he left his faith behind to pursue a career as a writer and academic.

Bradley Onishi poses for a portrait
For much of his young adult life, Bradley Onishi had been steeped in the very same mixture of religiosity and radical right-wing politics that was on display at the Capitol on January 6th. | Rudy Meyers

Book jacket for "Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism — and What Comes Next"
Onishi's new book, Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism — and What Comes Next, makes the case for a nuanced conversation about how contemporary strains of white Christian nationalism relate to earlier iterations of conservative Christian politics. | Broadleaf Books

Now, two years after Jan. 6 rioters carried the cross to the Capitol, Onishi — a faculty member at the University of San Francisco and the co-host of the popular podcast Straight White American Jesus — is bringing his background in the evangelical movement to bear on the rise of white Christian nationalism.



Premised on the belief that America is a white Christian nation whose laws and culture should reflect its biblical heritage, Christian nationalism has attracted fresh scrutiny in recent months thanks to endorsements from prominent Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and failed Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. But what’s been missing from the broader conversation about the movement, Onishi argues in his new book, Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism — and What Comes Next, is a nuanced sense of how contemporary strains of white Christian nationalism relate to earlier iterations of conservative Christian politics.

For Onishi, understanding the history behind today’s movement doesn’t just explain white evangelicals’ support for Trump or demystify the religious valences of Jan. 6. It also provides a window into the political forces shaping the American right as a whole.

“There is a real sense [among white Christian nationalists] that the apocalypse is coming for this country if [they] don’t do something radical,” Onishi says. “The idea that they would continue in ways that are standard — campaigns, voting drives, national renewal through ecumenical movements — that went by the wayside.”

The following has been edited for clarity and concision.

Ward: You identified the origins of white Christian nationalism in the conservative counter-revolution to the social and political changes of the 1960s. Ideologically, that backlash took the form of anti-communism, libertarianism and militant social conservatism. How did Christian identity fit into that matrix?

Onishi: Christian identity provided a very expansive story to that movement. It offered a story that could unite people who may have had disparate ideas about policy or who came from different regional settings. If you have a story that says, “This is a Christian country, it was built for and by Christians” — and implicitly stated these are white Christians — you start to have a narrative that is, in some tragic sense, a unifying one.

It also gives extraordinary authority to ordinary political policies and movements. It says that the push to overturn Roe v. Wade, or some military or foreign policy matter, is not just a political matter, as pressing as it may be. It’s actually something that is of divine importance.

MOST READ
1243313872
Trump makes his first big move in New Hampshire
Trump hits DeSantis: He’s a Covid skeptic phony
At the Pentagon, push to send F-16s to Ukraine picks up steam
Education Department releases new data on 25M applications for Biden’s student debt relief
‘There Is a Real Sense That the Apocalypse Is Coming’

I think the last thing it does is it puts those who buy into this story on the side of God. That may sound trite, but when you have an understanding of yourself as playing a special role in history, as outlined by the Creator, your political life takes on a supercharged dimension. I think we saw that on Jan. 6.

Second grade students with their hands folded at their desks as their teacher reads a passage from the Bible in 1962.
Horace Mann Elementary School second grade students with their hands folded at their desks as their teacher reads a passage from the Bible on September 25, 1962. | Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division

Ward: An important but underappreciated factor in the rise of white Christian nationalism were two Supreme Court cases in the 1960s pertaining to prayer in schools — Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and Abington v. Schempp in 1963. How did the reaction to those decisions shape the early Christian nationalist movement?

Onishi: In essence, what those cases did was make it illegal for public school districts to teach the Bible in their curricula as a religious text, as something that is instructive for all students. They also banned prayer in school on the part of school officials and school authorities. What those court cases did for many Americans was just to say, “Look, if you’re a Jewish kid sitting in a fourth-grade classroom, or a non-religious kid sitting in a junior high, you don’t have to start your day with the principal saying a Christian prayer or a teacher saying that it’s now time for us to do our daily Bible reading.”

However, they were framed [by conservative Christians] as signs that the United States was moving toward an anti-Christian and an anti-God future. They were presented as taking God out of schools, taking prayer out of schools, taking the Bible out of schools — and this became their rallying cry. It was so easy for ministers and political leaders to say, “Well, when you take God out of the schools, what do you expect to happen to the country? Children are going to lose their way, the country is going to fall into chaos, and we have no choice but to challenge public school curricula and send our kids to private Christian schools that are going to emphasize God and a God-focused curriculum.”

Ward: “They’re taking God out of the schools,” has persisted as a rallying cry among conservative Christians, but you point out in the book that that was really only half the equation. The other half was captured in a quotation from George Andrews, a congressman from Alabama, who responded to the Supreme Court decisions on prayer in schools by saying, “They put the Negroes in the schools and now they’ve driven God out.”

Onishi: I think that quote from George Andrews really provides us with both factors that are at play here. The context for this debate is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that integrated schools across the United States, particularly in the South. There were many white families that did not want to send their children to integrated schools, and this led to the advent of hundreds of schools attached to churches that were, in essence, segregation academies. They did not allow Black students.



If we fast forward to the late 1960s and early 1970s, the IRS and the federal government began threatening to take away the tax-exempt status of those churches if they continued to practice segregation. This led to a second rallying cry: that the federal government is interfering in the life of the American church, that it is persecuting Christians, and that it’s persecuting the choices of families who want to send their children to the schools of their choice. The George Andrews quote really encapsulates how racism and a sense of Christian persecution are the double foundations of this early movement.

Ward: Hopefully POLITICO’s readers will be familiar with Randall Balmer’s argument about “the abortion myth” — the thesis that the issue that first mobilized evangelicals politically was the fight over school segregation and not the fight over abortion.


Barry Goldwater, waves to delegates at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco in 1964.
Barry Goldwater, waves to delegates at the Republican National Convention in 1964 where he said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Onishi argues that Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964 prefigured some of the Christian nationalist themes that became more explicit in the 1970s | AP Photo

Onishi: I’m happy to say that Balmer outlined that history in grand detail in POLITICO and elsewhere.

Ward: You also argue that Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 prefigured some of the Christian nationalist themes that became more explicit in the 1970s. Goldwater famously broke with the religious right in the 1980s, but how did his campaign contribute to the incipient white Christian nationalist project?


Onishi: Goldwater presented an uncompromising conservatism. He was bombastic on the campaign trail. He said that we might need to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He said that while he personally supported the idea that Black and white folks in the South should live and work next to each other, he said that he was not going to sign any laws that forced integration. And he famously delivered a line during his presidential nomination acceptance speech where he said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

I think that’s worth thinking about. In essence, he’s saying that in times like these — the 1960s, when the civil rights movement was brewing, there were calls for immigration reform, women were pushing for independence and autonomy — extremism is the way that you can keep a hold on your country. Extremism is the modus operandi you are going to need to adopt if you are going to continue to hold positions of power in the political, social and economic realms. The foot soldiers of Goldwater’s campaign never forget this message.

Ward: Speaking of his foot soldiers, historians often point to the formation of the Moral Majority in 1979 as the moment when the religious fervor of evangelicals like Jerry Falwell formally entered into a political alliance with the political extremism of the New Right, led by former Goldwater supporters like Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie. But in some respects, that moment marked not only the beginning of a new sort of conservative politics, but also the culmination of a decades-long project of organization and collaboration between those two camps. What sort of political legwork went into making that union possible?

Onishi: Goldwater lost in a landslide in ’64, but his foot soldiers never lost their enthusiasm for his message and for this extremism. So throughout the ’60s, people like Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie and Morton Blackwell were working to build a political apparatus that would match what they saw on the Democratic side. What they wanted to do was take all of the charisma of Goldwater and turn it into a set of institutions and bureaucracies that would enable the takeover of the GOP and of American politics writ large.

What they realize in the early 1970s is that they don’t have enough votes, but they realize that if they can form a coalition with white, conservative Christians, they can find tens of millions of votes. And if they can promise the leaders of that movement — someone like Jerry Falwell — access to power, [those leaders] will no longer be laughed away as backward, rural Christians or old-timey people that have not caught up with modern America. This coalition building was already happening in the late ’60s and early ’70s, well before the official formation of the Moral Majority in 1979.


Ward: Weyrich, in particular, was not coy about his aims. For instance, you cite his statement: “We are all radicals working to overturn the present power structure.” If that’s not a pretty clear echo of Goldwater’s endorsement of political extremism, I don’t know what is.

Onishi: That’s exactly right. And Weyrich said that as somebody who was actively building the Council for National Policy and the Heritage Foundation. It’s easy to write him off as a boring institution builder, but what he was trying to do was instill the revolution into the institutions that make the GOP move and run — and he succeeded, largely.

Ward: One of the first actions of the New Religious Right was to declare war on Jimmy Carter. Carter was an evangelical, but he embodied a very different style of evangelical politics. What did the clash between the New Religious Right and the Carter administration reveal about the nature of their project?

Onishi: Jimmy Carter was almost made in a lab, in terms of being a white Christian president. He’s a Southern Baptist by birth, a military officer, a peanut farmer, and married to his high school sweetheart. However, when Carter got into the White House, he put more women and people of color in the judiciary than anyone before him. He was not publicly outraged by calls for more representation of gay Americans and gay families. He was not taking a hard-line stance on abortion. And perhaps most damning was that he was a dove on foreign policy — he wanted to use diplomacy when it came to America’s interest in conflicts all over the world.

It was all of those components that led Weyrich, Falwell and their cohorts to put everything they had behind Ronald Reagan, who was not one of them in a very strict sense. What this tells me is that their project was about power and not piety.

Ward: Another defining feature of the New Religious Right was an intense focus on “family values” — and in particular on a certain vision of sexual purity — embodied by groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. You write very movingly in the book about how purity culture influenced your own upbringing, but could you explain how the movement’s intense focus on individual purity also contributed to its political radicalism?


A group of American youths who have pledged not to have sex until married wear their silver rings as a sign of commitment.
A group of American youths who have pledged not to have sex until married wear their silver rings as a sign of commitment with pride in 2005. | Graham Jepson/ Camera Press, via Redux

Onishi: Purity culture dates back to the ’80s and ’90s, and it is a movement within predominantly evangelical churches that encourages young people to abstain from sex before marriage. But it goes further than that. It teaches that one should abstain from sexual thoughts before marriage, because even a sexual thought is adultery, and it teaches really rigid gender roles about men being leaders.


But there’s another component that often goes missing when we discuss purity culture. It was a project of national renewal. The idea was that if churches could get their young people to build the right kind of families with the right kind of straight, patriarchal relationships, and if they could get them to abstain from anything that transgressed any of those boundaries, then those families could be the building blocks of the right kind of America. What this meant was excluding any sense of impurity, not only in teenage relationships but in the American body politic as a whole. And impurity in this vision is infection coming from immigrants and the infecting of the American bodies through queer families and queer relationships that are not part of God’s plan.

So the idea of purity when it comes to the individual teenager is really just a projection of a national renewal project that envisions a pure American body that is heterosexual, white, native-born, that speaks English as a first language, and that is thoroughly patriarchal. You can see how the theology and the politics really go together here.

Ward: The religious right’s attitudes toward democracy also started to shift in the 1990s. What prompted that shift?

Onishi: In the last five or six years, we’ve seen a surprising affinity with Russia on the part of some white Christian leaders and politicians in this country. But that affinity did not start in the Trump era. That affinity started before the dawning of the new millennium, and it started because by the 1990s, Weyrich realized that he wasn’t going to get the votes that he had been searching for since the 1970s. He realized that the country was changing and that the demographics were not in his favor — and if you don’t have the votes, democracy is not the mode you want to operate in.

What Weyrich also started to realize was that [Russian President Vladmiri] Putin — who was rising to power throughout the early aughts — was starting to harness the rhetoric of the Orthodox Church by talking about Russia’s spiritual heritage and its Christian values. And he was doing that as somebody who increasingly did not have to wait for Congress or courts or anyone else to make decisions. Weyrich realizes that this kind of governance structure — with a strong man at the top who uses the powers of the church — is probably the most effective way to build the kind of nation that he wants. What results is a sense that Putin — and eventually Viktor Orbán in Hungary — are examples of the kind of leaders that Christian nationalists want. There’s a sense that democracy may have to be martyred in order to save the American nation.


Ward: That anti-democratic tendency dovetails with a proclivity on the religious right for a kind of conspiratorial approach to politics. For instance, you cite a recent poll that found that around 50 percent of nondenominational Christians today believe in some elements of the QAnon conspiracy. What political purpose do conspiracy theories serve on the religious right?

Onishi: I think it is easy to write people off as irrational or unhinged when they engage in conspiracy theories, but if we ask what conspiracy theories do in the context of the religious right, we arrive at a kind of power analysis.

This is a group that is used to having an enormous amount of privilege and influence over American politics, culture and economics, and over the last 60 years, they have increasingly felt as if that power has been slipping away. In my mind, conspiracy theories are a very effective way to mobilize one’s community and to leverage what is actually real and true in the public square, even if you don’t have the evidence or data to back it up. For the religious right, conspiracy is a reaction to not having unilateral decision-making power over what is accepted as true and unreal in the American public square. In many senses, conspiracy is a revenge fantasy — it’s an expression of resentment that says, “We are the ones who decide what is fact, we’re the ones who decide what is real, and we are going to push that vision on the public square even if you continue to tell us that there is no actual evidentiary basis for it.”


A Trump supporter holds a cross and prays in front of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
A Trump supporter holds a cross and prays in front of the US Capitol shortly before the building was breached on Jan. 6. Onishi cites polling in his work that finds around 50 percent of nondenominational Christians today believe in some elements of the QAnon conspiracy. | Nina Berman/Redux

Ward: Shifting to the present day, the ubiquity of Christian symbols on Jan. 6 underscored the lines of continuity between older conservative Christian movements and today’s white Christian nationalist movement. But is there anything new or different about today’s movement that distinguishes it from the religious right of the past?


Onishi: There is a sense of acceleration in today’s movement. In the Obama years, you had somebody who really embodied the fears of the counter-revolution of the ’60s: a mixed-race man with a Black family, a Muslim dad, an immigrant dad, somebody who grew up in Hawaii, that far-away corner of the Union. And then during his presidency, through the Obergefell decision, same-sex marriage is made legal. So in the wake of that presidency, there is a real sense [among white Christian nationalists] that the apocalypse is coming for this country if we don’t do something radical. The idea that they would continue in ways that are standard — campaign, voting drives, national renewal through ecumenical movements — that went by the wayside.

What set in during 2016 — and has remained with us ever since — is militant rhetoric that says, “It’s now all-out warfare.” What I’ve seen — and what I’ve documented with my colleague Matt Taylor — is an exponential rise in the rhetoric of spiritual warfare. You have pastors who have influence over hundreds of thousands of people saying, “It is time to get your swords bloody, it is time to realize you’re in the battle for your life, it is time to realize that the demons controlling the Democratic Party, the deep state and the United States government will not stop until they have rooted out God from this country.” And that kind of rhetoric is not something that you see from the Jerry Falwells or the Ronald Reagans of the ’70s and ’80s. That kind of acceleration, I think, is what enables political and actual violence to be legitimated from religious communities and by religious people.

Ward: Does that help explain why conservatives are increasingly embracing the term “Christian nationalist”? Liberal critics have hurled that term at religious conservatives for decades, but now we’re seeing conservative politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and conservative academics like Stephen Wolfe embrace it.

Onishi: When I converted in the ’90s, there was a sense of being counter-cultural Christians — that you’re part of a broader culture that no longer honors God, so you’re going to have to get used to being kind of thought of as a little bit counter-cultural. And as a teenager, that’s kind of a fun thing to do — that really appeals to the 16-year-old person, right?

I think in the 20-year shift that we’ve endured, the sense is no longer, “Hey, let’s be a countercultural Christian.” Instead, it is: “We as Christians are going to dominate and conquer culture, politics, economics and every other domain of society — so, yes, we are Christian nationalists, because we’re the Christians who are the rightful founders of this country and the rightful heirs of the founders. We’re the people God has sent to take dominion over every aspect of the United States. It’s a Christian nation, and we’re gonna build it in our vision.”


Ward: Nevertheless, some conservatives have argued that the GOP is now the party of the “post-Christian right” — in other words, that the primary issues shaping the Republican agenda are cultural or class-based rather than explicitly religious. What do you make of that?

Onishi: I think it’s a really short-sighted argument. All of the arguments that young Republicans make about the GOP being a post-religious party relate to issues like the backlash against critical race theory or about PTA meetings and those kinds of issues. But as I lay out in the book, and as many other scholars have laid out, the very issue of challenging the public school system is one that was invented by the religious right. This was part of their playbook 60 years ago, and the whole anti-CRT campaign was carried out using the apparatus that Paul Weyrich and his cohorts helped to build.

In fact, I think what’s happened is that the ideology of the New Religious Right is so pervasive that a young Republican is engaged in it even if that young Republican does not consider themselves to be a religious person. In many ways, I think that’s a sign that Weyrich really succeeded in his mission. I think it’s more accurate to say that Christian nationalism is nimble and agile enough to encompass a whole host of people, including young Republicans who may not attend church.

Ward: The history that you discuss in the book makes it clear that white Christian nationalists have never really hid their radicalism — and yet their role on Jan. 6 still came as somewhat of a surprise. Why didn’t the rest of America take them seriously?

Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump pray outside the U.S. Capitol January 6, 2021.
Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump pray outside the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

Onishi: A lot of folks are now very familiar with the phrase “white privilege,” but the writer Chrissy Stroop has helped me understand “Christian privilege” in the United States. The idea is that if you are a Christian person — especially a white Christian person — you are given a kind of benefit of the doubt in the public square. When you use rhetoric that can only be classified as extreme, it’s often written off, and it doesn’t set off the alarm bells that would be set off if you were a Muslim person or if you were someone who was neither Christian nor white.


Many people imagine the white Christian still to be Ned Flanders from The Simpsons — the kind of pesky, moralist neighbor up the street who doesn’t want people to use bad language or drink too much beer at the barbecue. But we really should envision him as Mr. Burns, the person who wants absolute control over the public square and who will use any means necessary to get it.

Ward: What’s next for the white Christian nationalist movement? On the one hand, there is the partisan radicalism that Trump has unleashed, but on the other hand, there is a strong tendency toward retreat and separation on the part of Christians, signified by projects like the American Redoubt. Are these different paths for the movement, or just the same path under different guises?

Onishi: In many ways, it’s the same goal, even if the methodologies might differ. You’re still going to have Christian nationalists who want to be at the top of the ticket, whether that’s as governor or as president or in Congress. But the American Redoubt movement represents the many Christian nationalists who are saying, “We’re going to move to a part of the country where we can really gather together in a separatist Christian society, and we’re going to prepare” — and these are their words, not mine — “for the coming Civil War and the collapse of the United States, so that when that happens, we will be ready to rebuild it in our image.” So I think the goals are the same.

Ward: And I suspect that the demise of Trump — if such a thing happens — wouldn’t do much to alter either of those tendencies?

Onishi: Trump’s power and influence are in question. They’re in flux at the moment. But I think Trumpism — and Christian Trumpism in particular — are alive and well.

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 48
H
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
H
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 48
True, we all have our biases and what we think is important. Christian nationalism- still don't get the term. However, I know very well a "good Christian- who owns a safe with lots of guns and ammo- he also has stocked up lots of non-perishable food- considers himself ready for the "breakdown of society"- personally, I couldn't reconcile lots of guns and ammo, horde of food AND claiming to be good Christian- really to kill many and not share his food- WWJD, don't think Christ would shoot up lots of folks. JMHO.


"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
From Wiki

Christian nationalism is Christianity-affiliated religious nationalism. Christian nationalists primarily focus on internal politics, such as passing laws that reflect their view of Christianity and its role in political and social life. In countries with a state Church, Christian nationalists, in seeking to preserve the status of a Christian state, uphold an antidisestablishmentarian position.

Christian nationalists support the presence of Christian symbols and statuary in the public square, as well as state patronage for the display of religion, such as school prayer and the exhibition of nativity scenes during Christmastide or the Christian Cross on Good Friday.

Christian nationalists draw support from the broader Christian right.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Not surprisingly, Christian Nationalists have been the cause of many wars big and small. In the name of the lord they go.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,003
Likes: 128
Lauren Boebart said she's all about Christian Nationalism. The other day she prayed for Joe Biden to Die...

Make of that what you wish..... but if that's christian nationalism, I want no part of it.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,375
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,375
Likes: 437
Originally Posted by Damanshot
Lauren Boebart said she's all about Christian Nationalism. The other day she prayed for Joe Biden to Die...

Make of that what you wish..... but if that's christian nationalism, I want no part of it.


Wow, talk about extremism. On YOUR part, that is.

Let his days be numbered - as in how long he serves. And another take his office - like, having a different president. Fairly simple, except for the haters. No where that I can find did she pray for his death.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,375
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,375
Likes: 437
But, you go on and believe what your media tells you. No sense listening to the actual words, right?

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
No idea what she meant. She sure didn't say "Let his days in office be few" ... which would have been unequivocal.

But then she really isn't too smart and apparently not much for studying the Bible.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1536848987361366022?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1537028907152588804%7Ctwgr%5E45c755163292ebd586224213636bf16a1dfe7b46%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freligiondispatches.org%2Frepublican-lauren-boebert-jokes-about-ar-15s-and-jesus-and-yes-shes-a-real-christian%2F


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
O
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,556
Likes: 668
LMAO! Three somewhat intelligent posters are pondering the deeper meaning of Lauren Boebert's mush-brained MAGA tweets. AND, smfh, one of these geniuses excoriatingly scolds others while professing to know her inner thoughts as he Trumpian-translates yet another poorly worded attempt to mask her truly intended wishes upon an old patriot serving as POTUS. With a sputtering of what amounts to "down with the man," the dim-witted Boebert has stupified the trio as evidenced in those replies.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,475
Likes: 161
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,475
Likes: 161
Lauren's crazy and I'm not a fan but she said ‘Let his days be few and another take his office... That’s why I filed articles of impeachment for Joe Biden'.

don't think she was praying for his death...

I pray that he's a one term president... I pray we have two new, younger, candidates to vote for in 2024...


<><

#gmstrong
1 member likes this: archbolddawg
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
M
Legend
Offline
Legend
M
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 585
I am not entirely sure.

Boebart calls out specifically Psalm 109:8 -

“May his days be few; may another take his position. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.”

There is clearly a play on the psalm where she changes "take his position" to "take his office" - but then the meaning and intent of the psalm she sited is unequivocal. Children fatherless and wife a window . . . As for the part about filing for articles of impeachment, I'd need to read an exact transcript of her speech to see how and when she said it. Was it directly after the prayer jibe? Or was it totally separate or even at another time/venue.

But the facts that I can see and verify through video - She sited psalm 109:8 - and then said "may his days be few ... " - the meaning of that Psalm is not debatable.

She's so crazy/stupid/sensationalistic - I don't actually know what she meant. But her siting of the psalm and her actual words 100% imply she prays for the death of the POTUS. The rest is spin.


The more things change the more they stay the same.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,909
Likes: 1296
Sometimes politicians make things purposefully opaque to allow anyone to take things any way they wish. They do it to create the very thing we see here. It's not clear exactly what she meant to cause even further chaos. However it does seem as though she was paraphrasing that Psalm which the intent is clear. People see what they want to see and refuse to see what they wish not to see.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 106
Once again god fearing Goper’s calling for the demise of our leaders they don’t agree with….with blasphemous proclamations. Not surprised. Someone that believes in that sort of thing should be praying for their souls.


Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.

George Washington
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Christian Nationalism

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5