Again... I'm a NT type of person... you know, pray and love your enemies?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity"
- Thread starter Windwalker
- Start date
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Actually, @Policy clearly referenced conservatives.
Before you trot out the old deceptive crap about the Republicans being the party who freed the slaves and the Democrats are the racists keeping them down, trying to equate it to the two parties in there current form;
I suggest you learn a little history…….
Do you mean democrats exemplified by the likes of Strom Thurmond?
Thurmond was a member of the Democratic Party until 1964, when he joined the Republican Party for the remainder of his legislative career. He also ran for president in 1948 as the Dixiecrat candidate, receiving over a million votes and winning four states.
Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia
The States' Rights Democratic Party (whose members are often called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern conservative white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats wished to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.
Party Ideology:
The main plank of the States' Rights Democratic Party was maintaining segregation and Jim Crow in the South. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. In the fall of 1964, Thurmond was one of the first conservative Southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party just a couple months after Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law.
The Dixiecrats represented the weakening of the "Solid South". (This referred to the Southern Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South and most seats in Congress, partly through decades of disfranchisement of blacks entrenched by Southern state legislatures between 1890 and 1908.
Dixiecrat - Wikipedia
“The Southern Strategy”
In the early 1960s, leading Republicans including Senator Barry Goldwater began advocating for a plan they called the Southern Strategy, an effort to make Republicans gains in the Solid South, which had been pro-Democratic since the American Civil War. Under the Southern Strategy, Republicans would continue an earlier effort to make inroads in the South, Operation Dixie, by ending attempts to appeal to African American voters in the Northern states, and instead appeal to white conservative voters in the South.
Many states' rights Democrats were attracted to Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower.
In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative, hawkish campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government.
Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act and championed this opposition during the campaign.
In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the Solid South as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters who had historically been beyond the reach of the Republican Party.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy?wprov=sfti1
With the aid of Harry Dent and South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican Party in 1964, Nixon ran his 1968 campaign on states' rights and "law and order".
This tactic was described as "dog-whistle politics".
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
Harry S Dent Sr.
Along with Clarke Reed of Mississippi and
Howard Callaway of Georgia, Dent is considered one of the architects of the Southern Strategy.
The elder Dent worked for Strom Thurmond, Barry M. Goldwater, and Richard M. Nixon during the realignment of the Democratic and Republican parties during the era of the Civil rights movement, and thereafter for Gerald R. Ford, Jr., Ronald W. Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush.
Harry S. Dent Sr. - Wikipedia
In the 1950s, Dent joined the staff of then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who had run for president as a segregationist Dixiecrat in 1948 against Harry Truman, Thomas Dewey and Henry A. Wallace.
Dent has been described as having helped to articulate the Southern Strategy. Its detractors called it "racism" cloaked in code words like "law and order."
Republican strategist Lee Atwater discussed the Southern Strategy in a 1981 interview later published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis.
Atwater:
As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...
Questioner:
But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater:
Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N!&&£r, n!&&£r, ni&&£r." By 1968 you can't say "n!&&£r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N!&&£f, n!&&£r."
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Without an OT there is no NT.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's not my job nor my responsibility to overcome your ignorance and bias against religion. That's YOUR job, and your responsibility. The fact that you want to fight about it instead of ask questions and learn tells me that you aren't going to take on that responsibility. Religion is not the cause of it's abuse. Neither are politics or commerce. The cause of their abuse is human nature. And in fact, religion and politics were developed to try and mitigate that abuse. Though they often fail and become the instruments of it. If you don't want to see that then nothing I say will open your eyes.
PureX
Veteran Member
No one is, because these are insignificant blips in U. S. history.
That's not really true, though. "Sola Scriptura" began when Guttenburg invented the printing press and Christians were finally able to obtain and read the Bible for themselves. The "voice of God" moved from the priest's mouths to the printed text. And biblical literalism has been around ever since. Because the average uneducated Joe wasn't able to grasp the idea of metaphor, and symbolism, and cultural mythology going in within the texts they were reading. Just as they are still not able to grasp it, because our basic educational system in the U. S. is so pathetically weak. It's the main reason why the U.S. is currently still so given to the resentment of science and fear-driven superstitions compared to other nations. They simply offer their people a far better basic education than we do.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Non-believers burn in a lake of fire. Eternal torture.
How do you feel ISIS should be dealt with?
Nice attempt at a strawman.
We weren't talking about who owned slaves, who is the best example of christian faith or who championed for freedom but rather it was declared a Christian nation. Would you like to open a different thread?
It isn't like you or I are the standards either.
Last edited:
I understand you haven't studied the scriptures.
i am of the faith of Abraham and not of the law of Moses which was for the Jewish nation.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
We can find lots of quotes! But it comes down to the majority of the folks who formed our government voting on a system that excluded Christian language, excluded religious testing for the leaders, and set up a barrier in the 1st Amendment between church and state.
The quoted Principles of Christianity appear to refer to Principles that can be generally considered a part of many religious and philosophical systems. Nowhere is Christ invoked in our Constitution. The quote is from letters between him and Jefferson when they were having a bit of a lover's tiff, and even Jefferson appears to be arguing these Principles guided the Founding Fathers. Jefferson was clearly on the separation team, however. He is the one that originally coined "separation of church and state. "
So to circle back to original question, how do you define the folks who want an overtly Christian government in America? Those folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert who want to require religious tests and want the church to direct the government?
Christian nationalism makes sense to me as a term because it evokes a sense of identifying one's country primarily with a religious identity.
It's a dangerous notion. Time and again, when any religion mixes with politics, the results are bad.
From my signature ISIS should be dealt with the same way God dealt with me. The preaching of the Gospel is the power to change a person's heart and giving the person the freedom to make their own personal choice.
Yes, they wisely excluded religious testing
No, the barrier was the Government not establishing a certain sect of Christianity to be a national position because of experiences in England. It wasn't putting a barrier of Christians being involved in the Government.
No, the letter of Jefferson was to assure the Baptists that they would have the freedom to worship God as they dictated.
No, the government did not exclude God from its language. There is a plethora of Christian language throughout the government of the US including prayer before the Supreme Court and Congress meets.
Yes, there should not be the negative application of Christian Nationalism as a test for leaders though the people are free to have it as their personal test.
and No, I don't want that kind negative Christian Nationalism, but I do want the good kind.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
You didn't understand what I said. The leaders of the Catholic church of that time had access to the written word... the people didn't. The leaders could then manipulate the people to do what they wanted, because the people didn't know what the scriptures actually said... Such as salvation by faith. The church even required indulgences be paid for getting the souls of relatives out of limbo, a place that is never mentioned in Scripture.Oh my God!! That is the funniest excuse ever! You are not following this so you can't read it. Now that makes all kinds of sense
Sorry, but your Christianity is just another religion. It is not much better or much worse than the rest of them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It sounds like you are a Paulist. Remember what Jesus said about those laws, not one jot or tittle.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I don't see any Republicans advocating for segregation, just the opposite, that's the liberals.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually you did not understand what you wrote. You might have meant to say that but you didn't.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
And how would you know what each individual follower of Christ was doing? You don't.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Citation needed.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Today's liberals are actually pushing for segregation again.
Cal State Los Angeles, the University of Connecticut, UC Davis, and UC Berkeley, among others, offer racially segregated housing for black students, in the name of diversity.
What kind of insanity is this, to suppose that reverse racism is a good thing?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Not scripture.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Using racism to fight racism (or sexism to fight sexism, etc.) is an asinine double standard and I don't support it.