What is a Christian nationalist?

[Brian Fantana 6691]

I see the might is always right guy is on a roll today.

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

From our own utilitarian standpoint, again— what’s the gripe? Please explain why “we” should not have exercised our power via politics and war in a way that maximized “our” utility? 

Doesn't exercising that power violate natural rights?

[David Dennison 18951]

46 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And yet here you are, chugging along, during the only time that exists. 

[956 Worldwide 34794]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Doesn't exercising that power violate natural rights?

I’m not on the defensive anymore, I’m asking you to defend your own first principles. Show me where they go and their utility to me. 

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m not on the defensive anymore, I’m asking you to defend your own first principles. Show me where they go and their utility to me. 

My only position in this whole debate is that rights do not exist independent of man. I can't determine for you what principles you deem useful.

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

32 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And in the case of the framers, that natural order was, shall we say, rather unfortunate for a not inconsiderable segment of the American population..

Quite the opposite. Most of them at that time took it for granted that slavery was a moral evil, but did it anyway because change is hard. Slavery had far more acceptance from a moral perspective in 1859 than it did in 1776. That’s the primary subject matter of “The Cornerstone Speech,” that the framers were mostly wrong about slavery being contrary to the natural order. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

My only position in this whole debate is that rights do not exist independent of man. I can't determine for you what principles you deem useful.

That’s like saying babies and music don’t exist independent of man. That’s a koan, not a position.

[956 Worldwide 34794]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

My only position in this whole debate is that rights do not exist independent of man. I can't determine for you what principles you deem useful.

I’m just asking you to operationalize your argument. 
 

I agree with you. Rights don’t exist except as secured via man exercising power. There’s no external driver or arbiter. Rights are what man secures for himself via politics and power. 
 

I am a white-passing man in the top 1 percent of global income, living in the metropole. I have accepted your thesis.  What is step two? 

Edited February 25 by 956 Worldwide

[David Dennison 18951]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m just asking you to operationalize your argument. 
 

I agree with you. Rights don’t exist except as secured via man exercising power. There’s no external driver or arbiter. Rights are what man secures for himself via politics and power. 
 

I am a white-passing man in the top 1 percent of global income, living in the metropole. I have accepted your thesis.  What is step two? 

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Profit

[David Dennison 18951]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s like saying babies and music don’t exist independent of man. That’s a koan, not a position.

Then I'll reiterate my definition of a right as that to which one is legitimately entitled. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Then I'll reiterate my definition of a right as that to which one is legitimately entitled. 

Legitimate according to who or what?

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Legitimate according to who or what?

Man.

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Man.

As opposed to what?

[David Dennison 18951]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

As opposed to what?

Nothing.

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Nothing.

Well no kidding. Who else would do it, the porpoises? 

[956 Worldwide 34794]

One common theme I see is conflating “hypocrisy” with “wrong.” 

[Brian Fantana 6691]

This might be the most pointless intellectual masturbation I've ever seen on this board and boy howdy is that saying something.

[David Dennison 18951]

39 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well no kidding. Who else would do it, the porpoises? 

"So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Edited February 25 by David Dennison

[Captainant 27826]

Man that NYT article is excellent thank you for sharing the gift link! The last few paragraphs are really the thesis of the whole piece IMO

Finally, we can’t forget the intense emotion of Christian nationalism. Most believers don’t follow ideological and theological arguments particularly closely. In the words of the historian Thomas Kidd, “Actual Christian nationalism is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.” It is tied, in other words, to a visceral sense that the fate of the church is closely tied to the outcome of any given political race.

That fervor can make believers gullible and potentially even dangerous. Its good-versus-evil dynamic can make Christians believe that their political opponents are capable of anything, including stealing an election. It artificially raises the stakes of elections to the point where a loss becomes an unthinkable catastrophe, with the fates of both church and state hanging in the balance. As we saw on Jan. 6, 2021, this belief invites violent action.

Committed Christian nationalists represent only 10 percent of the population, according to a 2023 PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. But even members of a minority that small can gain outsize power when they fold themselves into the larger Christian electorate, casting themselves as “just like you.” That’s why we cannot conflate Christian activism with Christian nationalism. One can welcome Christian participation in the public square while resisting domination, from any faith or creed.

[David Dennison 18951]

The Vatican knew what to do with heretics.

/s

[formermav43 4606]

50 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Man that NYT article is excellent thank you for sharing the gift link! The last few paragraphs are really the thesis of the whole piece IMO

Finally, we can’t forget the intense emotion of Christian nationalism. Most believers don’t follow ideological and theological arguments particularly closely. In the words of the historian Thomas Kidd, “Actual Christian nationalism is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.” It is tied, in other words, to a visceral sense that the fate of the church is closely tied to the outcome of any given political race.

That fervor can make believers gullible and potentially even dangerous. Its good-versus-evil dynamic can make Christians believe that their political opponents are capable of anything, including stealing an election. It artificially raises the stakes of elections to the point where a loss becomes an unthinkable catastrophe, with the fates of both church and state hanging in the balance. As we saw on Jan. 6, 2021, this belief invites violent action.

Committed Christian nationalists represent only 10 percent of the population, according to a 2023 PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. But even members of a minority that small can gain outsize power when they fold themselves into the larger Christian electorate, casting themselves as “just like you.” That’s why we cannot conflate Christian activism with Christian nationalism. One can welcome Christian participation in the public square while resisting domination, from any faith or creed.

FYI, I posted the Kidd article they are quoting there early in the thread too.

[Satchel 6949]

21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Seems that a good number of posters fundamentally disagree with this statement?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, except of course where  gun rights are involved.

No need to thank me.

[DixonHur 11394]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Says who?

The holder of the right.

If there is a can of coke on the table but I'm forbidden from drinking it, does that mean the coke doesn't exist?

Just because our rights are abused on a daily basis doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. 

Some of you act as though man didn't exist before repressive governments subjugated us. 

[David Dennison 18951]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The holder of the right.

If there is a can of coke on the table but I'm forbidden from drinking it, does that mean the coke doesn't exist?

Just because our rights are abused on a daily basis doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. 

Some of you act as though man didn't exist before repressive governments subjugated us. 

That means the right is not independent of a who.

[F250 28826]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

This might be the most pointless intellectual masturbation I've ever seen on this board and boy howdy is that saying something.

It's like a freshman year pot smoking session.

[Brisketexan 105438]

5 hours ago, YChang said:

Kinda timley, an opinion piece from the Times 

Just wanted to quote this again to get it back on topic.

Christian Nationalism is as deadly a threat as Islamofascism.  Forcing people to live under the domination of YOUR creed.  That's it.  It's not much more complicated than that.

If you want to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, good for you.  If you want to make it the law of the land that I have to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, go fuck yourself.  And Christians....when your approach isn't meaningfully distinguishable from Islamofascism....that's a bad look for ya.

Finally, didja ever notice that when "Christian Nationalists" talk about how this should be a "Christian Nation," and should have an enforce "Christian laws," they never, ever, ever, ever, not even a little bit, mean core messages and beliefs of...you know....CHRIST?  Things like the Beatitudes?  If we were to enact and enforce laws reflecting the teachings of Christ, there can be no theological debate that priority one would be stuff like Matthew 25-37-46: if you don't care for the least of these, feed the hungry, etc., you must suffer everlasting punishment.  If we're going to make the "Christian" faith THE LAW, we'd start with things like that.  But not only are those not priority one.....they're nowhere on the list.  Old Testament subjugation of women?  THAT gets a top spot.  Feeding the hungry?  Literally rejected by our loud and proud "Christian" governor just this week.

TLDR: "Christian Nationalism" is, above all else, a fucking lie.  A horrific, evil fucking lie.  It has nothing to do with Christianity, and the kingdom of God.  It has everything to do with one group of men brutally claiming and asserting their power over others.  The hypocrisy is that it wears the label of Christ, to work the very evil warned about in Christ's Sermon on the Mount.  Real Christians should be willing to give their lives to oppose the evil that "Christian Nationalists" want to do.

[DixonHur 11394]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That means the right is not independent of a who.

[Brisketexan 105438]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I heard that Horton fucked a who.

[DixonHur 11394]

I swear, Surly needs a surrender cobra emoji 

[David Dennison 18951]

We got GIFs, brah!

[Pato del Muerto 52616]

22 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Seems that a good number of posters fundamentally disagree with this statement?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The collective authors of that statement  fundamentally disagreed with it, insomuch as it did not apply to all men.  Further, the choice of saying all men instead of all people was surely deliberate and meant to convey that women did not have those rights. 

[troph 24912]

What is a Christian Nationalist? 

I think i found the answer, its in one of these threads… 

 

[wildcat09 29420]

17 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

This might be the most pointless intellectual masturbation I've ever seen on this board and boy howdy is that saying something.

No shit. You people need hobbies.

[Brisketexan 105438]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

No shit. You people need hobbies.

Ummm.....

Just now, wildcat09 said:

pointless intellectual masturbation

So, check that box.

[F250 28826]

11 hours ago, troph said:

What is a Christian Nationalist? 

I think i found the answer, its in one of these threads… 

 

Me for about 2 seconds after clicking on this thread and seeing the CR menu load again before realizing it was a screenshot.

[Pato del Muerto 52616]

Girl same

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

16 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That means the right is not independent of a who.

तत् त्वम् असि 

[wildcat09 29420]

*me, in the state of nature, as I'm being murdered for my meager possessions*  "But my right to life is a natural right, not derivative of a state!" 

For purposes of persuading children why rights are important, I suppose there's value in presenting them as natural rather than dependent on recognition by a state. But that is a distinction that does not and should not matter to adults. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19431]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

तत् त्वम् असि 

My favorite Led Zeppelin album. 

[nbmishoid 969]

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Isn't mathematics a decent enough analogy? It is self evident that 2+2 = 4. Whether or not any particular person or authority would accept that answer, it remains true. Natural rights, at least for their proponents, are similar. The right is inherent in sentience. A legal right is a different concept and depends upon a referenced legal structure. A natural does not require any separate structure other than existence. Your practical concerns may have some merit, but I don't find the rest of your argument terribly compelling. 

In math, you are taking the Platonist view, that abstract mathematical objects and theorem solutions exist “out there” in some ideal space.  While a serious position the problems are obvious.   Ideas did not exist absent people.  That does not prevent us from favoring an idea as “obviously favorable, or “true”.

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

Been avoiding this thread. Just dropped into the last page. Yikes. ‘Bout what I was expecting. Just curious. Has anyone brought up the anthropic principle yet?

[softlynow 1840]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Been avoiding this thread. Just dropped into the last page. Yikes. ‘Bout what I was expecting. Just curious. Has anyone brought up the anthropic principle yet?

Smart. Introducing that theory inevitably leads to a discussion of WAP, which could mistakelnly move this thread to another board and a quick death.

[DixonHur 11394]

3 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Smart. Introducing that theory inevitably leads to a discussion of WAP, which could mistakelnly move this thread to another board and a quick death.

If we're discussing WAP, I think that would fall under the I'd Pee in Her Butt board.

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

*me, in the state of nature, as I'm being murdered for my meager possessions*  "But my right to life is a natural right, not derivative of a state!" 

For purposes of persuading children why rights are important, I suppose there's value in presenting them as natural rather than dependent on recognition by a state. But that is a distinction that does not and should not matter to adults. 

So in effect you’re essentially demanding that “natural rights” mean something other than what it means so you can disagree with it, and calling the refusal to mean that “childish.”
Yes, very adult.

[David Dennison 18951]

[Dahobbs 17694]

41 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Been avoiding this thread. Just dropped into the last page. Yikes. ‘Bout what I was expecting. Just curious. Has anyone brought up the anthropic principle yet?

This seems close:

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

In math, you are taking the Platonist view, that abstract mathematical objects and theorem solutions exist “out there” in some ideal space.  While a serious position the problems are obvious.   Ideas did not exist absent people.  That does not prevent us from favoring an idea as “obviously favorable, or “true”.

Math isn't an idea we created. It is a set of relationships that we discovered. Those relationships against irrespective of whether anyone has any idea about them. 

[softlynow 1840]

37 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If we're discussing WAP, I think that would fall under the I'd Pee in Her Butt board.

[F250 28826]

Time to nuke this thread.

@Axiom of Choice come on down.

[Pato del Muerto 52616]

[Bozo_Casanova 26579]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This seems close:

Math isn't an idea we created. It is a set of relationships that we discovered. Those relationships against irrespective of whether anyone has any idea about them. 

Hold on. The relationships exist. The ideas do not.