Christian nationalism (split from The movement to destroy American culture and traditions.)

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Constitutional protections can’t be wiped away by EOs.

Wait and watch.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Federal judges and SCOTUS may end up being complicit, but it will require their help.

The ones who are not 'helping' will be replaced, whether he decides to ditch the religious faction or not. He intends to issue a lot more illegal and unconstitutional edicts that just banning gender non-conformity and exiling landed immigrants. And if he hurts the economy too much and doesn't live long enough, there are hands ready to catch the ... maybe too many hands? ... torch   

[swansont]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

And if that doesn't work, that's where the more serious and dedicated dictator declares martial law.  Though El Douche will probably save that move for 2028 if it looks like the voters who were suppressed in 2024 are jumping over the various hurdles next time they try.  

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

 

2026, if it’s obvious the GOP is going to lose either branch of congress because of failed policies 

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Wait and watch.

There are five lawsuits from 22 states challenging the citizenship EO. It’s already in the hands of the courts.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-to-hear-states-lawsuit-against-trumps-cancellation-of-birthright-citizenship

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s already in the hands of the courts.

Oh, goodie! We've seen Trump's egregious wrongdoings in the hands of the courts.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Oh, goodie! We've seen Trump's egregious wrongdoings in the hands of the courts.

He’s been handed lots of legal setbacks, just not when he is the defendant. Out of 60 lawsuits filed after the 2020 election alleging fraud, he has thus far won 1 of them. (7 still ongoing)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election

He doesn’t seem to have the best lawyers working for him.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

He doesn’t seem to have the best lawyers working for him.

It hardly matters when you either own or can intimidate the judges and law enforcement agencies.

If the law worked, he'd be in prison, not the White House.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it? You need to show that this is the case. America doesn’t have a national religion, unlike around 20 that have Christianity as theirs

I don't think this is a question of religion.

For more than a century America has been the most powerful cultural influence in the world, what happens in America is transmitted across the world; infecting the allies first.

You have Trump and we follow with our copy, Boris and Nigel.

I think it's more a question of the realisation that the American dream can only be won by the house, so let's make our house impenetrable with a prayer.

Fundamentally, I think the USA is starting to collapse under it's own gravity...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think this is a question of religion.

If religion weren’t an element it wouldn’t be called Christian nationalism. I mean, it’s right there in the name, and quite prominent in the ideology.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It hardly matters when you either own or can intimidate the judges and law enforcement agencies.

And yet we’ve seen where Trump-appointed judges have ruled against his screeds.

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If the law worked, he'd be in prison, not the White House.

That’s criminal law. As I pointed out already, he’s been stymied quite often in civil matters.

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

If religion weren’t an element it wouldn’t be called Christian nationalism. I mean, it’s right there in the name, and quite prominent in the ideology.

Your assumption is Chistian is the name of the religion, your ideology assumes correctness...

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your assumption is Chistian is the name of the religion, your ideology assumes correctness...

Oh, yeah, I guess I’m assuming that it’s not nationalism promoted by guys named Christian, by, y’know, the description of it.

I’m tempted to say “Could you be more of an obtuse ass?” but I’m afraid you’d take as a challenge. If you’re not interested in engaging in a good-faith discussion, one option is to just not post.

[m_m]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:17 PM, swansont said:

you’d probably see that the Democrats’ policies are better aligned

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

On 1/24/2025 at 7:36 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Modern science doesn’t say anything about God (Christian or otherwise), since the concept is not amenable to the scientific method.

Yes, that's why I am talking about modern science. One of the members of this forum, Trurl, wrote good words, that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us. 

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

Which values do you mean, the ones they espouse or the ones they follow? For instance, the OT quite emphatically urges us to treat immigrants well, and the NT talks a lot about loving thy neighbor, yet Christians in the US are very vocal and supportive of this anti-immigration push, and are often behind all the hateful speech against neighbors who look a bit different or love a bit different. 

For me, it's easy. If the behavior seeks to help others with fairness and not judgement , it's generally ethical. Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we're seeing unfold right now.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

I don’t see what that’s necessary. It’s a distinction without a difference, and it’s not like Christianity has a monopoly on this.

The bottom line is that Republicans have neither.

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Which values do you mean, the ones they espouse or the ones they follow? For instance, the OT quite emphatically urges us to treat immigrants well, and the NT talks a lot about loving thy neighbor, yet Christians in the US are very vocal and supportive of this anti-immigration push, and are often behind all the hateful speech against neighbors who look a bit different or love a bit different. 

For me, it's easy. If the behavior seeks to help others with fairness and not judgement , it's generally ethical. Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we're seeing unfold right now.

Exactly, "Love thy neighbor".

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. "

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

Just now, swansont said:

I don’t see what that’s necessary

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, that's why I am talking about modern science. One of the members of this forum, Trurl, wrote good words, that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us. 

One of the main differences between science and religion is this: religion holds its truths to be sacred and unchanging. Science discards that which isn't observable, testable, or falsifiable, so it seems pretty natural that science studied what your god "created for us" and found it wanting as a theory. I mean, look at how much science has progressed compared to religion over the last 500 years or so. So why were Trurl's words good?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

Or my big human brain tells me that constant conflict and persecution is pointless when decency and respect aren't that costly and work so much better where humans are concerned. It makes more sense to embrace diversity than it does to eradicate it. 

13 minutes ago, m_m said:

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

Are you saying this religion is beyond normal ethical and moral concerns somehow?

 

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

I mean, look at how much science has progressed compared to religion over the last 500 years or so. So why were Trurl's words good?

And where has this progress led us? To the Christian nationalism?

His words are good, because there are so much freedom, and aspiration and gratitude in this point of view. 

Just now, Phi for All said:

Are you saying this religion is beyond normal ethical and moral concerns somehow?

No, I am saying that there is the difference between Christianity and ethics. Ethics is people's words, and the Bible is the Word of God. 

Edited 17 hours ago by m_m

[swansont]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

That’s like saying “it matters because it matters” -you haven’t given a reason why that’s important.

I was comparing results and you’re discussing motivation. 

Democrats have policies that help the poor. Republicans have policies that help the rich, and hurt the poor. You’ll see that at no point did I discuss motivation. Only that one of those policy sets is aligned with Christian values, and the other is not.

As I said elsewhere, Christianity does not have a monopoly on e.g. “help the poor” That’s an attitude you’d find in other religions, and among decent people who have empathy but are not religious. Whether it’s actually derived from Christian teachings is irrelevant to my argument. Whether it’s important to you is also irrelevant to my argument. If you have some other argument to make, go ahead and make it - but make somewhere other than in response to this.

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us.

The universe that’s being studied by science is the same now as it was before the 20th century, so I don’t quite understand this comment.

[m_m]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s like saying “it matters because it matters” -you haven’t given a reason why that’s important.

I was comparing results and you’re discussing motivation. 

Democrats have policies that help the poor. Republicans have policies that help the rich, and hurt the poor. You’ll see that at no point did I discuss motivation. Only that one of those policy sets is aligned with Christian values, and the other is not.

As I said elsewhere, Christianity does not have a monopoly on e.g. “help the poor” That’s an attitude you’d find in other religions, and among decent people who have empathy but are not religious. Whether it’s actually derived from Christian teachings is irrelevant to my argument. Whether it’s important to you is also irrelevant to my argument. If you have some other argument to make, go ahead and make it - but make somewhere other than in response to this.

"Help the poor" and "Love each other" are different things.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The universe that’s being studied by science is the same now as it was before the 20th century, so I don’t quite understand this comment.

Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method wrote many philosophical and theological works. 

"His portion of the method based in scepticism was a new rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, whose practical details are still central to debates on science and methodology. He is famous for his role in the scientific revolution, promoting scientific experimentation as a way of glorifying God and fulfilling scripture."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

Yes, the universe is the same, but the methods of studying are opposite.

Science wasn't detached from religion as nowadays. 

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

Ethics exclude slavery from ethical behavior.

16 hours ago, m_m said:

Exactly, "Love thy neighbor".

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. "

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

Cherry pick much?

16 hours ago, m_m said:

No, I am saying that there is the difference between Christianity and ethics. Ethics is people's words, and the Bible is the Word of God. 

Yes, the word of God asserts that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, slavery is ok, unruly teenage boys should be killed, teasing a man of "God" for being bald deserves being torn apart by bears, getting your father drunk and having sex with him... do I really need to continue about the word of God? 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Oh, yeah, I guess I’m assuming that it’s not nationalism promoted by guys named Christian, by, y’know, the description of it.

I’m tempted to say “Could you be more of an obtuse ass?” but I’m afraid you’d take as a challenge. If you’re not interested in engaging in a good-faith discussion, one option is to just not post.

Yeah, that post was embarrassing, drunk as charged...

But my point, is that we're seeing this issue from different perspectives; mine is the savage pointing at the king, with a dumb question that's difficult to explain; you're the suffisticate with knowledge of the nuance that explains why the fabric is so sheer.

From my perspective America seems to be the perfect breeding ground for nationalistic tendencies above that, or at least equal to religious nationalism, I think this is the result of the fundamental promise from the government, that we're all equally likely to hit the jackpot if we work hard enough.

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

"Help the poor" and "Love each other" are different things.

And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method wrote many philosophical and theological works. 

Not the founder.  Ibn al-Haytham five centuries before Bacon was an early pioneer in the scientific method, setting out much of the empirical and experimental framework that later Renaissance scientists adopted.  I really tire of seeing this founder myth of Bacon perpetuated.