The rise of Christian Nationalism

[Suranis]

If that's what you want to believe.

[Resume18]

It [atheism]behaves pretty much as a religion. It has its Profits, clergy, fanatics and theology that must not be questioned. It has people who are really dogmatic and attack you if you bring up a fact that threatens their world view. If Atheism is not a religion it's doing a very good job of pretending to be.

I appreciate you went to a brain-rotting seminary but that surely is arrogant stupidity beyond what your cult leaders taught you!

I am a typical atheist, I don't follow anyone, I am not a fanatic, I certainly do not know of any clergy (when has there ever been an atheist service?). I am not a member of any organized grouping. My moral viewpoint is probably broadly humanist but I never pay any attention to about organization telling me about humanism as a philosophy, I just get on with being a decent person. I am typical.

Atheists have no theology – by definition: even a seminarian should be able to understand that and why!

As for facts which threaten our world views, what the heck could those be? If you are talking about the way you apologists slimily explain away inconsistencies or falsehoods in your magic books as misreadings or misinterpretations, we don't care. It's all make-believe, it matters no more than arguing about whether the transporters in Star Trek are feasible.

So everything you wrote was untrue. False. Lies. You wrote to provoke out of the hatefulness that your church preached and you too often practise.

If ever there were an example of how religion can rot the mind, this crap from you is it. You have engaged in serial what-aboutism to excuse your precious church's disgusting behavior, and now you insult those who recognize that misogynistic bullies in sillly clothes haranguing congregations with fantastical fairy tales, pompous incantations and incense are not especially worthy of respect or attention.

Have some respect for those who are not as terminally deluded as you.

All this.

[p0rtia]

Thanks, Sam.

[Suranis]

Off Topic

Have some respect for those who are not as terminally deluded as you.

I will just point out that when someone, in the middle of a massive pile on in Oldbow showed me a link to Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada into the Indian Residential schools, the same person posted that I was trying to whitewash the Church. Because I did what no-one else had done... I read it. And I accepted what it said, good and bad, And I started quoting what it actually said. Rather than sticking to the delusions about what it MUST say.

Because her own link said something different that her theology, She rejected her own evidence and stuck to the scriptures of Atheism rather than what her own fucling link said. And so did other people. The rejected the truth and stuck with the Myths. Yes, that's paraphrasing a line from the New testament.

If that's not terminal delusion, I'm not sure what is.

This is volume 4 of the Truth and reconciliation commission report. Read it yourself like I did, and get less deluded. There's a lot of stupidity and raw evil in there, and the history is actually very interesting.

https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... sh_Web.pdf

I'm choosing Volume 4 because it deals with the missing and dead children, and the Unmarked Burials. All the horrific stuff that I would cover up. And because I know you wont read it. Too much risk of having to become a Heretic to your Atheist beliefs. Too much risk of being attacked by the other Atheist Fanatics for having to tell the truth.

And having been a victim of the mob on this very forum, you should be afraid to say something outside the Doctrines. Atheist fanatics are merciless and cruel. That's how I know you fanatics exist.

And here's the Calls to Action. There's over 90 of them. People didn't believe me when I told them that only four related to the religious orders who ran the schools (60% of whom were Catholic), and only one related to the Catholic Church specifically. Because reading it themselves, and finding out I was telling the truth, would be scary. They rejected the truth on front of their eyes to stick to the doctrines of Atheism.

https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... glish2.pdf

Yes, that's terminal delusion. That's fanaticism.

And finally, you are attacking me here, and proving my point.

So fuck off.

[Suranis]

Well this was a threadcjack.

So, would the LDS Skousen stuff of Ammo Bundy etc count as Christian Nationalism?

[sugar magnolia]

It [atheism]behaves pretty much as a religion. It has its Profits, clergy, fanatics and theology that must not be questioned. It has people who are really dogmatic and attack you if you bring up a fact that threatens their world view. If Atheism is not a religion it's doing a very good job of pretending to be.

I appreciate you went to a brain-rotting seminary but that surely is arrogant stupidity beyond what your cult leaders taught you!

I am a typical atheist, I don't follow anyone, I am not a fanatic, I certainly do not know of any clergy (when has there ever been an atheist service?). I am not a member of any organized grouping. My moral viewpoint is probably broadly humanist but I never pay any attention to about organization telling me about humanism as a philosophy, I just get on with being a decent person. I am typical.

Atheists have no theology – by definition: even a seminarian should be able to understand that and why!

As for facts which threaten our world views, what the heck could those be? If you are talking about the way you apologists slimily explain away inconsistencies or falsehoods in your magic books as misreadings or misinterpretations, we don't care. It's all make-believe, it matters no more than arguing about whether the transporters in Star Trek are feasible.

So everything you wrote was untrue. False. Lies. You wrote to provoke out of the hatefulness that your church preached and you too often practise.

If ever there were an example of how religion can rot the mind, this crap from you is it. You have engaged in serial what-aboutism to excuse your precious church's disgusting behavior, and now you insult those who recognize that misogynistic bullies in sillly clothes haranguing congregations with fantastical fairy tales, pompous incantations and incense are not especially worthy of respect or attention.

Have some respect for those who are not as terminally deluded as you.

Here come the woooords and the linnnnks.

[Suranis]

Here come the woooords and the linnnnks.

Yes, someone making a point and backing up what they say proves that they are wrong.

Seriously, what are you, Qanon?

[sugar magnolia]

[Slim Cognito]

Had a conversation with a friend a few weeks back, and she asked me about my religious beliefs. Since she’s the captain of the dance team, and quite religious, I told her that my religious beliefs were outside the mainstream. She said that was fine, as long as I wasn’t an atheist. Then she said “can you imagine how horrible it would be to live your life knowing you’re going to burn in hell.” It took every muscle in my neck not to shake my head or roll my eyes.

[sugar magnolia]

Had a conversation with a friend a few weeks back, and she asked me about my religious beliefs. Since she’s the captain of the dance team, and quite religious, I told her that my religious beliefs were outside the mainstream. She said that was fine, as long as I wasn’t an atheist. Then she said “can you imagine how horrible it would be to live your life knowing you’re going to burn in hell.” It took every muscle in my neck not to shake my head or roll my eyes.

And it never occurs to them that "hell" is their construct.

[Suranis]

You know, I just want to say (without reading whatever anyone said after my reply, btw) that I shouldn't have used that word Qanon. that was stupid and trolling, ans I unreservedly apologize.

[qbawl]

I have to side with Sam on this one. Atheists are a diverse group. Our universal dogma is a lack of dogma and no need for a 'supreme' being to dictate or even inform morality.

[p0rtia]

Meanwhile, I've done some poking around.

For starters (and giggles), Law Insider weighs in with a definition of religious affiliation I can get behind. Limited use, but fact-based.

Religious affiliation means a membership in an organized religion recognized by federal internal revenue service tax exemption or a membership in a traditional Indian religion in Wisconsin, pursuant to federal regulations established under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC, Sec. 1996.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/r ... ffiliation

Wikipedia takes a stab at a global definition of religion that provides useful terminology.

Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness, faith, and a supernatural being or beings.

So, given the above, I head back to Christian Nationalism. All I has is questions.

Are we talking about a religion, here? Obviously religious elements are being used (as they are) by folks whose primary interest is domination. Is MAGA a religion or a cult or a political party? Do we call packs of violent, racist, bloodthirsty sheep a political party? Is CN the same as Christofascism (my preferred term)?

I'm thinking that there's not much point in trying to identify the numbers of Christofascists via a breakdown of US religious affiliation. I'm thinking political party affiliation? The Christo part seems useful because these shits use it, in the face of all the evidence, to define themselves. But, seriously?

I feel like I'm using Christofascist, nor Christian Nationalist, because it conveys some of the characteristics of the movement. But it's not really working for me. I conclude that we need another word. MAGA. Fascist. Insurrectionist. I dunno.

[Rolodex]

I've been super interested in the existence (and rise) of Christian Nationalism. I kind of use that as the movement and have used Christofascist to describe a person. There's significant overlap here, and the CNs have found a cozy home within authoritarian and far right folks. Putting it all under the banner of "Christian" burnishes the whole thing as blessed by God, as indeed, American has been (according to them).

Seven Mountain Dominionism (Ted Cruz talks about this), New Apostolic Reformation (our lovely AL supreme ct justice who says extrauterine children have rights is a self proclaimed "Apostle"), and other lesser known groups all have in common an impetus to have America be a theocracy - at least in practice if not in name. Speaker Mike Johnson is all in on this; you'll notice a flag outside his office: a white background upon which is a green pine tree and "An Appeal to Heaven" written beneath. You would have seen these flags carried by some rioters on J6. That flag has become a symbol for NAR and others; it was used in the Revolutionary war, as some believed that God decided who won battles and so our guys "appealed to heaven" for victory. There's lots of info about all this; this Rolling Stone article has some good basic info: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234873851/

Another thing tied into all this is a belief in the "inerrancy" of the Bible. Being "inerrant" isn't the same as "literal," but these evangelicals (and CNs) all pretty much believe in this. It's a whole other big topic, but I think that folks who can accept the rather circular argument that the Bible is the Word of God, saying exactly what "he" means, and that argument is proven by the Bible saying it's the Word of God. Historical inaccuracies and contradictions are fine because God put them in there like that. Those are the folks who are drawn to authoritarianism, who are fine with trump being a horrible person but one who will get them what they want so they support him. It's ok that his behavior is in contradiction to what Jesus preached.

I've gotten way too far into this because I think it's fascinating. It's frustrating for me as a Christian because I don't agree with any of that stuff; I just like the stuff Jesus said about helping people out and being kind to one another, etc. Power isn't my goal. I have wanted to understand how people in the same faith could feel so differently than I do. And I hate being lumped into that loud judgy group.

[AndyinPA]

I'm not sure how many people lump them all together. I have a cousin who is definitely in the Christian Nationalist camp. She recently posted hateful quotes about immigrants from the Old Testament. I have a good friend who is very liberal and belongs to a caring, progressive church.

[p0rtia]

:yeahthat" x 2.

That's the point.

The "Christian" of "Christian Nationalism" is not particularly descriptive. It's so insulting to a lot of people. Or horrifying. "Evangelical Nationalists" might be better. "Evangelical Fascism?" Of course there are ass-holes of all mainstream religions and cults participating. Atheists too, one assumes.

Fascism appears to be non-denominational. Except of course it is driven in large part by various vile cults that proclaim Christ as their god and apparently long for the return of the Dark Ages.

[Slim Cognito]

I like your Christ. I do not like your christofascists.

(apologies to Ghandi). I have friends and family who are sincere, Christ-following Christians and I love and respect them. But don't get me started on these effin' nationalists.

[Foggy]

Excellent thread, much needed. Thanks, Rolodex.

[p0rtia]

I like your Christ. I do not like your christofascists.

(apologies to Ghandi). I have friends and family who are sincere, Christ-following Christians and I love and respect them. But don't get me started on these effin' nationalists.

Still pondering out loud about terminology. I like "christo" more than "christian". "christo" is a combining form, carrying the meaning of "related to Christian." Thus "christofascist" conveys the idea of fascists + Christian element. This is a few steps further away from conveying that the Nationalists in question are Christians as the word is commonly used.

Back in the day, we struggled with the term "Muslim terrorists." I was living in Egypt for much of that time, and I can vouch for it that the term was repulsive to the average Muslim. They pushed for "Muslim extremist," which I think/hope is largely used these days. But even that was unsatisfactory, and folks would say, "They're not Muslims" the same visceral way we hear "They're not Christians" with regard to "Christian Nationalism".

"Christian extremist" sounds weird, doesn't it? But it's pretty true.

[Rolodex]

Portia, I like "extremist," too. I appreciate your struggle with terminology.

Back after 9/11 there was, of course, plenty of Islamaphobia. "Muslim terrorist" was the nom du jour and I didn't like it much, either. I heard a lot of "ok you're saying not all Muslims are terrorist, but where are the Muslims denouncing this terrorism??!!??" The thing is, it was there. But these folks would not read or hear anything from Muslims because "they're all terrorist." No way to win. Obviously, but a billion or so Muslims around the world, only a small minority are terrorists, but peaceful people don't make the news. I do think we seem to have settled on Islamic Terrorist" for now, which is at least better that (all) Muslims.

I mostly use Christian Nationalists as I guess that's what the media uses and it's a handy shorthand that encompasses various groups. They are basically fascist in how they'd like to organize society and their ideology would be (their version of) Christian-centric. But like the millions of peaceful Muslims who are just doing their thing, the rest of Christians are getting lumped in with the CN sect.

Which brings up a whole argument of "not real Christians" which comes from both us lefty Christians and the CN types. But the thing is, if someone calls themself a Christian, then they are, because it's about belief, not acts. Just as there are mainstream protestants who believe in Biblical literacy and/or inerrency, there are mainstream Christians who do not believe that at all (and in fact do not require that belief in the official church positions).

[Foggy]

But the thing is, if someone calls themself a Christian, then they are, because it's about belief, not acts.

I disagree. I had this discussion with a woman who claimed that all she had to do was say that Christ was her personal savior and poof! She was a saved Christian. I think you gotta at least try to lead a Christian life using Christian principles. Heck, I'm not even a Christian (agnostic here) but I was taught to live my life according to Christian principles, and I still sorta do, if I'm being honest.

But being a Christian is not, or at least should not, be an easy thing. Being a real Christian is hard work. I don't know about other religions.

[Slim Cognito]

I never bought into the whole, "if I ask forgiveness after I've intentionally caused harm to someone, then I'm saved" routine. My brother and his wife raised their daughter in church, and took her with them when they helped out at the City Union Mission, which was the charity my mother favored. After an early Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, they'd head down to the mission to help out and make a cash donation. That's how I believe a true Christian behaves. And I'm sure there's dozens more equally good examples.

[Rolodex]

But the thing is, if someone calls themself a Christian, then they are, because it's about belief, not acts.

I disagree. I had this discussion with a woman who claimed that all she had to do was say that Christ was her personal savior and poof! She was a saved Christian. I think you gotta at least try to lead a Christian life using Christian principles. Heck, I'm not even a Christian (agnostic here) but I was taught to live my life according to Christian principles, and I still sorta do, if I'm being honest.

But being a Christian is not, or at least should not, be an easy thing. Being a real Christian is hard work. I don't know about other religions.

It's a struggle. Christians argue between themselves about belief vs "works."

I'm in the camp of trying to do "good," be generous, be kind, be peaceful, be inclusive, advocate for those who have no power, etc. One does not need to be a Christian to do any of those things, absolutely. But it's my motivation.

But others would say I'm not a Christian because I believe things they think are against "the Bible" like LGBTQ rights, etc.

I used to say that those CN types weren't "really" Christians because of how they act and the things they say. But the more I thought about that, the more it had a scent of "Christian privilege" or "superiority." I don't like those kinds of folks representing xtianity any more than they like they way I present as a xtian. I don't know anything at all about Suni Islam or Shia islam. I hear they fight each other in Muslim countries. Does each sect think the other is not a "real" Muslim"? I don't know what they think, but if so, I think we have different sects here of xtianity. We share the same writings (mostly) but not the same interpretation or expression of those writings. I appreciate your perspective!

[northland10]

Faith and works has been debated for centuries, and the debate will always be there (along with chairs versus pews debates). I sometimes go back to:

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

I like the remember the old hymn:

"They will know we are Christians by our love."

Sadly, IMHO, too many see Christianity as a "temple of righteousness." Do they seek a Christian label or a Christian life? From faith extends love, our love and God's love, and that love extends to all God has created made manifest through our deeds and actions.

Full disclosure. Like most, I fall short. My works often do not live up to my words. I must always work on that.

[Rolodex]

That's the hymn I always go back to, too. When I was teaching bells to teens, I always did that piece and even though we're instrumentalists, I made sure they knew the words.

There's a perception at large that Christian = good. Excuse me. The Crusades? The Inquistion? So many terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity - in pursuit of power (so that Christians can be in charge, I guess).

I'm a United Methodist - folks may know we're in the middle of chaos right now (although most is behind us, split-wise, I think/hope). It's been a microcosm of the whole CN stuff. The folks who left are "conservatives" who call themselves "biblical." Being an activist in the "stay" contingent, I learned that quite a few United Methodists didn't really know or agree with or believe what UM teaches. Now they're gone to go be congregationalists/Baptists, which is what they always were.