Tulsi Gabbard announces she is leaving Democrat Party

[Jefferson]

1. Do you disagree with the tenets and/or goals of Christian Nationalism?

Christian Nationalism​

​

A study which was conducted in May 2022 showed that the strongest base of support for Christian nationalism comes from Republicans who identify as Evangelical or born again Christians.[51][52] Of this demographic group, 78% are in favor of formally declaring that the United States should be a Christian nation,​

I think it would be great if every country formally declared themselves to be a Christian nation. Proverbs 16:25 is one of my reasons why. Do you disagree? If so, please state why you disagree citing chapter and verse.

versus only 48% of Republicans overall. Age is also a factor, with over 70% of Republicans from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations supporting the United States officially becoming a Christian nation. According to Politico, the polling also found that sentiments of white grievance are highly correlated with Christian nationalism: "White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59% of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against ... favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38% of all Americans."[51][53]​

​

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has referred to herself as a Christian nationalist. Fellow congresswomen Lauren Boebert and Mary Miller have also expressed support for Christian nationalism.[54][55]​

The above 2 paragraphs have zero to do with any of the planks of "Christian nationalism" according to your own source. See Christian Nationalism

​

Politician Doug Mastriano is a prominent figure in the fundamentalist Christian nationalist movement, and has called the separation of church and state a myth.[56][57]​

Can you quote the section in the US Constitution that calls for the separation of church and state?

​

Andrew Torba, the CEO of the alt-tech platform Gab, supported Mastriano's failed 2022 bid for office,[58] in order to build a grass-roots Christian nationalist political movement to help "take back" government power for "the glory of God"; he has argued that "unapologetic Christian Nationalism is what will save the United States of America".[59][60] Torba is also a proponent of the great replacement conspiracy theory, and he has said that "The best way to stop White genocide and White replacement, both of which are demonstrably and undeniably happening, is to get married to a White woman and have a lot of White babies".[59] White nationalist Nick Fuentes has also expressed support for Christian nationalism.[61][62]​

​

Author Katherine Stewart has called the combined ideology and political movement of Christian nationalism "an organized quest for power" and she says that Florida governor Ron DeSantis has identified with and promoted this system of values in order to gain votes in his bid for political advancement.[63] Desantis, who has invoked Christian nationalist rhetoric,[51][64] has also endorsed the Evangelical Christian notion of "purity culture" and the mythology of "white innocence" while pushing laws such as the Stop W.O.K.E. act to combat so-called "woke indoctrination" in schools.[63]​

Again, the above has zero to do with any of the fundamentals of so-called "Christian nationalism" according to your Wikipedia link.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, DeSantis has also promoted a civics course for educators, which emphasized the belief that "the nation's founders did not desire a strict separation of state and church"; the teacher training program also "pushed a judicial theory, favored by legal conservatives like DeSantis, that requires people to interpret the Constitution as the framers intended it, not as a living, evolving document".[65][66][67][52]​

It's called "Original Intent."

If someone were to quote a post you made 10 years ago on TOL, would it be perfectly okay with you if that person deliberately twists your meaning? Or would you rather they accurately convey what you originally intended? Would you like it if they said. "Well, Anna's post is a "living, evolving" post. I can make it mean whatever I want it to mean"? No, I don't think you'd be okay with that, would you?

​

Some Christian nationalists also engage in spiritual warfare and they say militarized forms of prayers in order to defend and advance their beliefs and political agenda.[68] According to American Studies professor S. Jonathon O'Donnell: "A key idea in spiritual warfare is that demons don't only attack people, as in depictions of demonic possession, but also take control of places and institutions, such as journalism, academia, and both municipal and federal bureaucracies. By doing so, demons are framed as advancing social projects that spiritual warriors see as opposing God's plans. These include advances in reproductive and LGBTQ rights and tolerance for non-Christian religions (especially Islam)."[69]​

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia’s definition of Christian Nationalism.

​

January 6 and beyond​

In the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the term "Christian nationalism" has become synonymous with white Christian identity politics, a belief system that asserts itself as an integral part of American identity overall.[59][70] The New York Times notes that historically, "Christian nationalism in America has ... encompassed extremist ideologies".[59][71] Critics have argued that Christian nationalism promotes racist tendencies, male violence, anti-democratic sentiment, and revisionist history.[72][73] Christian nationalism in the United States is also linked to political opposition to gun control laws and strong cultural support for the Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.[74]​

​

Political analyst Jared Yates Sexton has said: "Republicans recognize that QAnon and Christian nationalism are invaluable tools" and that these belief systems "legitimize antidemocratic actions, political violence, and widespread oppression", which he calls an "incredible threat" that extends beyond Trumpism.[75]​

Off topic. This has nothing to do with the definition of Christian Nationalism.

2. Do you disagree with the tenets and/or goals of the Seven Mountain Mandate?

The Seven Mountains Mandate is based on a postmillenial eschatology. I do not subscribe to that eschatology.

 

[7djengo7]

The Seven Mountains Mandate is based on a postmillenial eschatology. I do not subscribe to that eschatology.

A seven-year monthly subscription at about $8/issue ends up costing $666--for those who have that kind of money on-hand. Kind of a beastly markup, I would think. And the deal's not especially sweetened by the draconian no-returns policy. Unfortunately there's bound to be quite a few suckers who'll be souled on it.

 

[annabenedetti]

The Seven Mountains Mandate is based on a postmillenial eschatology. I do not subscribe to that eschatology.

You finally answered a question without evading, redirecting, or answering with a question.

Busy day, I’ll get to the rest when I have more time.

 

[Jefferson]

You finally answered a question without evading, redirecting, or answering with a question.

I expect the same in return.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think it would be great if every country formally declared themselves to be a Christian nation. Proverbs 16:25 is one of my reasons why. Do you disagree? If so, please state why you disagree citing chapter and verse.

We're talking about American Christian Nationalism, so let's keep the focus on that. And in this country, the Constitution specifically prohibits an establishment of religion.

Are you in favor of overturning that prohibition?

The above 2 paragraphs have zero to do with any of the planks of "Christian nationalism" according to your own source. See Christian Nationalism

Yes they do, they're referencing Republican conservative support for declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, which is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Those two paragraphs are actually from that same link. You have to scroll down to United States.

​

Can you quote the section in the US Constitution that calls for the separation of church and state?

As you and I both know, that specific phrase isn't in the Constitution. However, as we also both know, the prohibition on establishing an official religion is found in the First Amendment. Are you in favor of overturning that amendment?

Again, thea a bove has zero to do with any of the fundamentals of so-called "Christian nationalism" according to your Wikipedia link.

Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.

It's called "Original Intent."

Original intent is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. How do you propose to circumvent that in order to proclaim the United States a Christian nation?

If someone were to quote a post you made 10 years ago on TOL, would it be perfectly okay with you if that person deliberately twists your meaning? Or would you rather they accurately convey what you originally intended? Would you like it if they said. "Well, Anna's post is a "living, evolving" post. I can make it mean whatever I want it to mean"? No, I don't think you'd be okay with that, would you?

What does that have to do with the original intent of the framers that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? What would you find twisted in a literal reading of that intent?

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia’s definition of Christian Nationalism.

Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.

Off topic. This has nothing to do with the definition of Christian Nationalism.

Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.

If you intend to make repeated declarations of what Christian Nationalism in the U.S. doesn't look like in the face of what it's been described to be by those both inside and outside of it, and the goals some of its proponents declare it to have, maybe you could tell me what you think it looks like.

 

[way 2 go]

☕️ TRUMPED UP ☙ Saturday, March 18, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Trump breaks more traditions by preparing for an arrest, so now we can arrest them all; Kathy Hochul shoots for worst governor of all time; Biden blinks at reporter's question; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

On February 19, 1942, arguably the most liberal democrat President in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed anti-democratic Executive Order 9066, which made racism the official policy of the United States government, by authorizing the forced removal of “resident enemy aliens” from any parts of the West vaguely designated by the government as “military areas.” Japanese immigrants and their descendants, regardless of American citizenship status or length of residence, were systematically “evacuated” to government prison camps.

Hundreds or thousands of American citizens lost jobs, businesses, homes, and property, all in service to democrat party fear-mongering and politics.

Now the democrats are doing it again. New York’s arguably most liberal democrat Governor in history is attempting to do the EXACT SAME THING, except that instead of citizens with “Japanese ancestry,” Hochul’s anti-democratic health regulation would apply to people the State government deems “unclean,” regardless of whether there is any actual evidence (much less proof) that an “unclean citizen” was even sick.

 

[7djengo7]

the Constitution specifically prohibits an establishment of religion.

What do you mean by your phrase, "an establishment of religion"? Could you describe the nature of whatever you'd call
"an establishment of religion"? What is/are the sine qua non(s) of whatever you'd call "an establishment of religion"?

they're referencing Republican conservative support for declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, which is in direct opposition to the Constitution.

Your phrase, "declaring the U.S. a Christian nation", is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Could you tell us exactly what would constitute "declaring the U.S. a Christian nation"? Isn't declaring simply affirming a proposition? Surely you don't want to declare to us that the Constitution is opposed to someone affirming the proposition, "The U.S. is a Christian nation," right? Even if you happen to think the proposition, "The U.S. is a Christian nation," is false.

 

[7djengo7]

☕️ TRUMPED UP ☙ Saturday, March 18, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Trump breaks more traditions by preparing for an arrest, so now we can arrest them all; Kathy Hochul shoots for worst governor of all time; Biden blinks at reporter's question; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

On February 19, 1942, arguably the most liberal democrat President in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed anti-democratic Executive Order 9066, which made racism the official policy of the United States government, by authorizing the forced removal of “resident enemy aliens” from any parts of the West vaguely designated by the government as “military areas.” Japanese immigrants and their descendants, regardless of American citizenship status or length of residence, were systematically “evacuated” to government prison camps.

Hundreds or thousands of American citizens lost jobs, businesses, homes, and property, all in service to democrat party fear-mongering and politics.

Now the democrats are doing it again. New York’s arguably most liberal democrat Governor in history is attempting to do the EXACT SAME THING, except that instead of citizens with “Japanese ancestry,” Hochul’s anti-democratic health regulation would apply to people the State government deems “unclean,” regardless of whether there is any actual evidence (much less proof) that an “unclean citizen” was even sick.

I always call FDR, "Franklin Delano Reich", since his corrupt, disgraceful time of residency in the White House spanned from 1933 to 1945, just like Hitler's thousand-year reich.

 

[Jefferson]

We're talking about American Christian Nationalism, so let's keep the focus on that. And in this country, the Constitution specifically prohibits an establishment of religion.

Are you in favor of overturning that prohibition?



Yes they do, they're referencing Republican conservative support for declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, which is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Those two paragraphs are actually from that same link. You have to scroll down to United States.



As you and I both know, that specific phrase isn't in the Constitution. However, as we also both know, the prohibition on establishing an official religion is found in the First Amendment. Are you in favor of overturning that amendment?



Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.



Original intent is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. How do you propose to circumvent that in order to proclaim the United States a Christian nation?



What does that have to do with the original intent of the framers that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? What would you find twisted in a literal reading of that intent?



Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.



Again, that is also from the same link. Scroll down to United States.

If you intend to make repeated declarations of what Christian Nationalism in the U.S. doesn't look like in the face of what it's been described to be by those both inside and outside of it, and the goals some of its proponents declare it to have, maybe you could tell me what you think it looks like.

The original intent of the 1st amendment is to handcuff the federal government and protect the states. The amendment prohibited the feds from making any national law that would dictate to the states establishing one religious denomination over other religious denominations. The states, however, could do what they wanted.

"Congress shall not..." Congress is wearing the handcuffs. Not individual states. Not any denomination. Not any person. And Congress is the only law-making body. Our handcuff-wearing Congress is forbidden to make any law that prohibits any state from determining its own religious affairs.

The 1st amendment does not require the federal government nor the states to be secular. In fact, after the adoption of the 1st amendment the federal government reenacted the policy of The Northwest Ordinance by declaring, "Religion...shall forever be encouraged." The Constitution even references Jesus Christ: In Article VII, the Constitution states: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence..."

Keeping original intent in mind, the 1st amendment means the federal government shall make no law dictating to any state that they must support a single church, or prefer one Christian creed or denomination over another. The 1st amendment, therefore, provides freedom for religion, not from religion.

 

[way 2 go]

16 years after creating the CIA, in an op-ed titled “Limit CIA Role To Intelligence,” President Truman wrote: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.” All federal agencies exist to serve the American people. We cannot allow any unelected federal agencies/bureaucrats to operate outside the Constitution, undermine our civil liberties, and create their own foreign policies.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637409595550466049

 

[annabenedetti]

The original intent of the 1st amendment is to handcuff the federal government and protect the states. The amendment prohibited the feds from making any national law that would dictate to the states establishing one religious denomination over other religious denominations. The states, however, could do what they wanted.

"Congress shall not..." Congress is wearing the handcuffs. Not individual states. Not any denomination. Not any person. And Congress is the only law-making body. Our handcuff-wearing Congress is forbidden to make any law that prohibits any state from determining its own religious affairs.

The 1st amendment does not require the federal government nor the states to be secular. In fact, after the adoption of the 1st amendment the federal government reenacted the policy of The Northwest Ordinance by declaring, "Religion...shall forever be encouraged." The Constitution even references Jesus Christ: In Article VII, the Constitution states: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence..."

Keeping original intent in mind, the 1st amendment means the federal government shall make no law dictating to any state that they must support a single church, or prefer one Christian creed or denomination over another. The 1st amendment, therefore, provides freedom for religion, not from religion.

Are you in favor of overturning the first amendment in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation? Yes or no?

As for individual states, they all have state legislatures, and gradually, over time, even before the 14th. amendment, all states had moved to disestablish religion at the state level.

 

[7djengo7]

Are you in favor of overturning the first amendment in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation?

Do you really mean anything by that? What exactly would it be to "establish the U.S. as a Christian nation"? Was not the U.S. already established, back in the 18th century?

 

[Jefferson]

Are you in favor of overturning the first amendment in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation? Yes or no?

The 1st amendment would be a part of a Christian nation. It's the pro political censorship left that obviously hates the 1st amendment. They only like the 1st amendment for themselves, not for their opponents.

As for individual states, they all have state legislatures, and gradually, over time, even before the 14th. amendment, all states had moved to disestablish religion at the state level.

And those states have the freedom to reestablish religion at the state level. Isn't that wonderful that the states have that freedom? Or are you against the 1st amendment?

 

[annabenedetti]

The 1st amendment would be a part of a Christian nation. It's the pro political censorship left that obviously hates the 1st amendment. They only like the 1st amendment for themselves, not for their opponents.

It was a yes or no question, and you still haven't answered it.

Again: Are you in favor of overturning the first amendment in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation? Yes or no?

And those states have the freedom to reestablish religion at the state level. Isn't that wonderful that the states have that freedom? Or are you against the 1st amendment?

I'm not against the first amendment at all, but it sure seems you may be.

Again: all states had moved to disestablish religion prior to the 14th. amendment. Do you support their individual moves to disestablish?

 

[ok doser]

... in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation ...

Define "establish the US as a Christian nation"

 

[Jefferson]

It was a yes or no question, and you still haven't answered it.

Again: Are you in favor of overturning the first amendment in order to establish the U.S. as a Christian nation? Yes or no?

That's like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife.

I'm not against the first amendment at all, but it sure seems you may be.

I'm the mod who doesn't ban anyone for their political beliefs without an act of congress.

Again: all states had moved to disestablish religion prior to the 14th. amendment.

Wrong. Humanism is a religion.

 

[ok doser]

Which specific Constitutional right am I personally inclined to limit?

I believe you're still waiting for a response to this

 

[annabenedetti]

That's like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife.

No it's not. It's like me asking you if you'd support a change to the Constitution allowing the U.S. to be called a Christian nation and you being unwilling to answer the question.

I'm the mod who doesn't ban anyone for their political beliefs without an act of congress.

Which has nothing to do with our discussion, but does provide obfuscation.

Wrong. Humanism is a religion.

Obfuscation. Again. All states, prior to the 14th amendment, had moved, individually, to disestablish religion.

What part of Christian Nationalism is uncomfortable enough to not want to be considered an adherent of or a fellow traveler with it?

 

[ok doser]

... a change to the Constitution allowing the U.S. to be called a Christian nation ...

In what way does calling the US a Christian nation, in other words stating the obvious, equate to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

 

[Jefferson]

No it's not. It's like me asking you if you'd support a change to the Constitution allowing the U.S. to be called a Christian nation and you being unwilling to answer the question.

Your question assumes it is possible to have a country based upon biblical principles and at the same time deny its citizens the freedom of speech. That's an oxymoron.

Obfuscation. Again. All states, prior to the 14th amendment, had moved, individually, to disestablish religion.

It is the opposite of obfuscation. They actively, deliberately, willfully established the religion of secular humanism. Are you not aware that there is no such thing as moral neutrality?

What part of Christian Nationalism is uncomfortable enough to not want to be considered an adherent of or a fellow traveler with it?

No group is ever going to accept being defined by their ideological enemies. Are you going to accept the Democrat Party being called the Groomer Party or the War Party, even though those terms are accurate? God's enemies want theocrats, like myself, to be labeled with a term that sounds like "white nationalism" because it sounds racist and fascist - two things which describe the left.