"Christian nationalism" is a real threat.

[ahhell]

Actually I find it quite hopeful, given that the two categories that together comprise all of the non-disagreeing responders is 29%, which is the same as the categorical rejectors and then there's the mostly disagreeing group on top of that. They may be a significant minority but there's as many who completely reject their ideas as there are those who hold them--and those who only kinda hold them.

I tend to agree.

Its about as big a threat as "wokism". That is, it is a threat and should be pushed back on but its silly to think we're actually in danger of becoming a theocracy.

Take abortion, the majority want it to be available with reasonable limits. The minority want it to be always illegal and a minority want it to be always legal.

When the Anti-abortion crowd got there chance to effectively ban abortion in Kansas of all places, it failed, as will most of the christian nationalist crowds ideas.

I generally agree with Dudalb's contribution to this thread.

And while we are distracted with the pretense that everyone who disagrees with us is either a Falangist or a Marxist depending on your perspective, we're spending ourselves into oblivion.

The actual greatest threat to the US is the constant demonizing and exaggeration of the evils of the other side.

 

[varwoche]

If only it was a mere threat.

It's high time for a walk on the real side
Let's admit the bastards beat us
- Steely Dan​

 

[Hans]

I tend to agree.

The actual greatest threat to the US is the constant demonizing and exaggeration of the evils of the other side.

Exactly. I was once a Republican now Independent, an American who was born outside the United States and mainly spent my work life overseas. You guys are - in general - nuts in regards to politics.

 

[Donal]

That's certainly one way of putting it; but it might be just as misleading. The Puritans who left England left because their dissent over the Church of England's practices as "too Catholic" and ostentatious (particularly upon the accession of Charles I) got them literally persecuted there.

Ya, it's not a binary choice. And I certainly won't paint the crown as any sort of victim or hero.

It is technically true that they would not have allowed any other flavor of religion at the Massachusetts Bay Colony while they were in charge there; but that's rather a moot point as the colony was effectively a Puritan commune. The people who founded it went there specifically to be Puritans, and if you didn't agree with them in every detail you were free to just go start your own colony somewhere else (which is exactly what happened, several times).

In Anne Hutchison's case, you were free to get expelled.

 

[Donal]

I tend to agree.

Its about as big a threat as "wokism".

Ya, just like al those "wokists" mailing pipe bombs to reporters.

That is, it is a threat and should be pushed back on but its silly to think we're actually in danger of becoming a theocracy.

Ya, it's not like Christian dominionists have attained the highest levels of office and pushed a foreign policy of trying to trigger Judgement Day or anything *coughMikePompeoMikePencecough*

Take abortion, the majority want it to be available with reasonable limits. The minority want it to be always illegal and a minority want it to be always legal.

What's the difference between "reasonable limits" and "always legal"? And why do you think the majority opinion matters?

When the Anti-abortion crowd got there chance to effectively ban abortion in Kansas of all places, it failed, as will most of the christian nationalist crowds ideas.

That has less to do with a popular vote and more to do with a Democratic governor who won't use executive power to over rule that referendum, like Republicans in Florida regularly do.

I generally agree with Dudalb's contribution to this thread.

And while we are distracted with the pretense that everyone who disagrees with us is either a Falangist or a Marxist depending on your perspective, we're spending ourselves into oblivion.

The actual greatest threat to the US is the constant demonizing and exaggeration of the evils of the other side.

No, it's the cowardice of "bothsidesism".

 

[ahhell]

Ya, just like al those "wokists" mailing pipe bombs to reporters.

Or guys going around Texas shooting cops.

Ya, it's not like Christian dominionists have attained the highest levels of office and pushed a foreign policy of trying to trigger Judgement Day or anything *coughMikePompeoMikePencecough*

IF you say so

What's the difference between "reasonable limits" and "always legal"? And why do you think the majority opinion matters?

So, you are anti-democratic. Practically, it matters because how else will you institute your chosen policy.

As I've said elsewhere most folks think it should be always legal in the first trimester, mostly illegal in the third with the obvious exception for life and safety of the mother, with some transition in between. This is the essentially the legal regime through out Europe with variations on the transition, waiting periods, and how much paternalism from doctors is there.

If you want something else, you'll have to convince the majority of americans that you are correct.

That has less to do with a popular vote and more to do with a Democratic governor who won't use executive power to over rule that referendum, like Republicans in Florida regularly do.

The referendum lost, the governor didn't need to veto.
I don't know about Kansas, but most governors don't have the authority to veto props and referenda.

What inititive did DeSantis veto?

No, it's the cowardice of "bothsidesism".

If you say so.

 

[Stacyhs]

The thread is about Christian nationalism, not about religion in general, and I think that it's important to distinguish between religions.

Correct...which is why all those examples I gave were Christian sects.

I don't know much about the Quakers, but based on what I've read they seem to have been better than most other Christians in many respects, at least historically: anti-slavery, pro women's rights, faster to accept evolution than most other Christian denominations. There are even "Nontheist Quakers, whose spiritual practice does not rely on the existence of God," which appears to have been a fairly early version of modern 'cultural Christianity'. And "To differing extents, the Friends avoid creeds and hierarchical structures."

It sounds like a Christian version of moving away from religion (or at least from religious fundamentalism), very much unlike and in opposition to Christian nationalism:
Stop Trump(ism) (Quaker Socialist Society, May 27, 2019)
Quaker Lobby Supports the Impeachment of Trump (BusinessWire, Jan 12, 2021)

The Quakers are among the least offensive Christian religions in my opinion. I come from a long line of Quakers.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Intelligent Design is to Creationism as Christian Nationalism is to White Supremacy.

 

[Stacyhs]

Intelligent Design is to Creationism as Christian Nationalism is to White Supremacy.