I'm baffled by the American Evangelical Christian Right.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

On 10/14/2024 at 3:26 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

In the case of your example, christian nationalists believe that America is under a completely new and separate covenant with god, as defined by the US Constitution.  The Constitution itself is the covenant.  And since America is under a separate covenant, they are justified in cherry picking either, both, or neither of the previous covenants to justify their actions and beliefs.

 

Here's what our tax dollars go toward: educating our children about the Constitution (and PBS): 

(for those of you who can read) 

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/10/13/citizen-nation-shows-theres-hope-for-democracy-and-our-future-in-championing-civics-in-schools/

 

 

[Crithin8]

At some point in this discussion I had to look up the term ‘Christian Nationalist’. I was surprised by what I found to be the definition. There were three references: Christianity.com, Wikipedia, and Freethoughttoday.com. I sum it up as Christians that want religious and civil law to be the same. Wow. That bothers me. Religion first people second hasn’t gone well in history and sucks for people living under that  today. 

 

 

There are stereotypes presented in this discussion. I can see elements of those stereotypes. I do not have references of a majority representation of some of those stereotypes in my area. Could be I’m not engage with such people, could be there are not those people in this area. And it may be that I put not-actively religious rednecks in a separate category as active Christians. (Not meant as a subtle towards you professor). If Walt would have asked for a non-church going redneck NRA member who checked Christian in the box of religion I could have delivered such a personality in a different perspective. 

 

 

 I do see the influence of Christian Nationalism peppered into some of the preaching that I’ve heard. But more so in private impassionate opinions. The majority of public oration seems to be personal growth, evangelism, and salvation.  

 

My pursuit is the best approximation of accuracy available. I left Christianity because of the lack of it. That is my purpose in this post. To provide a foreigner with an accurate perspective of Christians in my area. Sheep following the leaders and not questioning much. But leaders that are not aggressive in government take over. Again, in my area. 

 

I am familiar with small autonomous local churches. And drawing from those experiences. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 hour ago, Crithin8 said:

At some point in this discussion I had to look up the term ‘Christian Nationalist’. I was surprised by what I found to be the definition. There were three references: Christianity.com, Wikipedia, and Freethoughttoday.com. I sum it up as Christians that want religious and civil law to be the same. Wow. That bothers me. Religion first people second hasn’t gone well in history and sucks for people living under that  today. 

 

This is not really that surprising since when I think about it, it's not really something I considered until I said it out loud. 

In every sense of the word, it is a cultural identity and has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. I guess I could say I've been in that cultural immersion most intensely in the past ten years. 

Everyone silently agrees that 'god/jesus' exists, guns are good, church is optional and orange jesus is the beginning of the rapture. All non-xtians that are not worshipping orange jesus are worthy of being killed. Abortion is bad. Period. 

Must listen to 'right' wing radio. 

There are other rules. Shall I go on? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Crithin8 said:

(Not meant as a subtle towards you professor).

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, Crithin8 said:

My pursuit is the best approximation of accuracy available. I left Christianity because of the lack of it.

This reminds me of a point I meant to make in my previous posts, but inadvertently forgot to do so.  Another legacy of the Regan administration during the 80s was getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine in journalism.  The Fairness Doctrine basically stated that if a news agency was going to present a controversial subject (such as politics) then their coverage of that subject had to present both sides of the issue as directly as possible without openly taking sides on the issue.  Moreover, it was mandated that news agencies devote sufficient time to controversial subjects in order to keep the public adequately informed on the major issues impacting their lives and society.  

 

There was, even in the 80s, a certain amount of leeway when it came to editorializing or "spinning" the facts to fit whatever particular narrative a news agency wanted to promulgate.  But, for the most part, the news media could be trusted to present the facts.  My generation was raised up believing that the news was "true", and we could believe what we were being told.  But when Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, slowly over time the "news" got more and more biased, more and more openly partisan, and (sadly) less and less reliable.  These days, it's not even required that the "news" contain facts.  It has become perfectly acceptable for news agencies to dispense "alternative facts," or just downright lies.

 

So we no longer know what to believe.  We might see some footage of an event happening; but we first have to determine whether the footage is even real or is it AI, photoshop, or some other deep fake generation.  Then, if we can determine the reliability of the footage itself, we have to question the accuracy of the story we're being told about it.  

 

"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want."  ~Hannah Arendt

 

It is quite disillusioning; and many people my age and older would much rather just not bother.  Many would rather simply choose one, and only one, thing to trust, whether it be a politician, a trusted religious leader, a doctrine or philosophy, or some holy book of old.  Everything then becomes filtered through the lens of that one singular Trust.  That Trust, to them, is The Truth; and all else is a Bigly Lie.  Reality--the evidence of their own eyes, the testimony of their own family, the sacredness of their own scripture--must be bent into the shape and form of the Trust, their Truth.

 

What we see with Christian Nationalists is this twisting of Everything to conform to their own contorted sense of Truth.  One Man has become The Truth and nothing else, no one else, can be trusted.  In truth, they are a pitiful lot, truly deserving of pity for their inability to distinguish between reality and a reality TV show.

 

Fairness Doctrine | Ronald Reagan (reaganlibrary.gov)

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This reminds me of a point I meant to make in my previous posts, but inadvertently forgot to do so.  Another legacy of the Regan administration during the 80s was getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine in journalism.  The Fairness Doctrine basically stated that if a news agency was going to present a controversial subject (such as politics) then their coverage of that subject had to present both sides of the issue as directly as possible without openly taking sides on the issue.  Moreover, it was mandated that news agencies devote sufficient time to controversial subjects in order to keep the public adequately informed on the major issues impacting their lives and society.  

 

There was, even in the 80s, a certain amount of leeway when it came to editorializing or "spinning" the facts to fit whatever particular narrative a news agency wanted to promulgate.  But, for the most part, the news media could be trusted to present the facts.  My generation was raised up believing that the news was "true", and we could believe what we were being told.  But when Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, slowly over time the "news" got more and more biased, more and more openly partisan, and (sadly) less and less reliable.  These days, it's not even required that the "news" contain facts.  It has become perfectly acceptable for news agencies to dispense "alternative facts," or just downright lies.

 

So we no longer know what to believe.  We might see some footage of an event happening; but we first have to determine whether the footage is even real or is it AI, photoshop, or some other deep fake generation.  Then, if we can determine the reliability of the footage itself, we have to question the accuracy of the story we're being told about it.  

 

"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want."  ~Hannah Arendt

 

It is quite disillusioning; and many people my age and older would much rather just not bother.  Many would rather simply choose one, and only one, thing to trust, whether it be a politician, a trusted religious leader, a doctrine or philosophy, or some holy book of old.  Everything then becomes filtered through the lens of that one singular Trust.  That Trust, to them, is The Truth; and all else is a Bigly Lie.  Reality--the evidence of their own eyes, the testimony of their own family, the sacredness of their own scripture--must be bent into the shape and form of the Trust, their Truth.

 

What we see with Christian Nationalists is this twisting of Everything to conform to their own contorted sense of Truth.  One Man has become The Truth and nothing else, no one else, can be trusted.  In truth, they are a pitiful lot, truly deserving of pity for their inability to distinguish between reality and a reality TV show.

 

Fairness Doctrine | Ronald Reagan (reaganlibrary.gov)

 

THANK YOU FOR AN EXCELENT EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAPPENED TO JOURNALISM AND THE "NEWS"!!  I heard a lady say it this way some time back.  "Freedom of speech without a sense of responsibility will lead to disaster".    Hitler reportedly said, "If you tell a lie long enough, people will begin to believe it."   Sadly, there is some truth to the statement.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

17 hours ago, Crithin8 said:

At some point in this discussion I had to look up the term ‘Christian Nationalist’. 

 

A few months ago I was talking to a cousin who is a big church goer, and dabbles in politics on the local level.  He had never heard the term, and said there was no discussion of it at church that he knew of.  (a mainstream Church of Christ in Tulsa, Ok)  I asked several other church going people if they were familiar with Christian Nationalism. and they gave the same reply.  

 

I'm not sure the nationalist wanted the term spread around.  The plan has been in effect for years and they have been slowy filling lower government positions all across the nation.  Trump installed 3 Supreme court justices that think like they do, and they were/are hoping to ride Trumps coat tails into washington and finish the job by implimenting Project 2025.

 

Very interesting.  I contacted one of our right wing senators in Washington and voiced my concern about Project 2025.  His reply was that he knew nothing about Project 2025.  Had never seen it, or read it, and didn't plan on reading it.  There were more important things to do than worry about that "project".  This is a retired doctor who backs Trump and goes to some kind of "non-denominational protestant church".   This movement is not going to go away, just delayed a few years, if Trump doesn't become president.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

Very interesting.  I contacted one of our right wing senators in Washington and voiced my concern about Project 2025.  His reply was that he knew nothing about Project 2025.  Had never seen it, or read it, and didn't plan on reading it.  There were more important things to do than worry about that "project"

 

This is unacceptable. He's lying. 

 

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

This is a retired doctor who backs Trump and goes to some kind of "non-denominational protestant church".

 

Trying for One World Religion? Doesn't the Antichrist do that in Revelations? 

Just going from my memory banks. Any members know about this?  

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

This movement is not going to go away, just delayed a few years, if Trump doesn't become president.

 

This.