What is a Christian nationalist?

[Biff Tannen 45477]

8 hours ago, formermav43 said:

If you can stand a little theological discussion, here’s a pretty good article critical of the concept from the evangelical historian Thomas Kidd. And if you don’t want to read it, his short definition is similar to what 956 said above: “an understanding of American identity and significance held by Christians wherein the nation is a central actor in the world-historical purposes of the Christian God.“

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-nationalism-patriotism/?amp

Totally normal

[DixonHur 11074]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which rights exist independent of man?

Well, again, you put it in the present tense, but assuming you meant ever, as was my point, the right to do and think what you want was common among hunter/gathers and even many early agricultural societies.  

For example, when the Jesuits first arrived in what is now Canada, they were shocked to find that there were no laws among some of the tribes.  Even within tribes who had chiefs, there was no mechanism for forcing people to do anything.  The chief's role was essentially to convince people to do things via debate.  But they had no authority to make them do it.

Edited February 24 by DixonHur

[David Dennison 18605]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, again, you put it in the present tense, but assuming you meant ever, as was my point, the right to do and think what you want was common among hunter/gathers and even many early agricultural societies.  

For example, when the Jesuits first arrived in what is now Canada, they were shocked to find that there were no laws among some of the tribes.  Even within tribes who had chiefs, there was no mechanism for forcing people to do anything.  The chief's role was essentially to convince people to do things via debate.  But they had no authority to make them do it.

I mean ever. Rights, as such, are a man made creation.

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I mean ever. Rights, as such, are a man made creation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If I live by myself in the remote wilderness, how are my rights man-made?  Are you suggesting that as an individual, my rights are created by myself?  Therefore, since I am a human (man), they are man-made?

That seems like an awful lot of circular logic.

[David Dennison 18605]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If I live by myself in the remote wilderness, how are my rights man-made?  Are you suggesting that as an individual, my rights are created by myself?  Therefore, since I am a human (man), they are man-made?

That seems like an awful lot of circular logic.

Name a right that exists independent of man.

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Name a right that exists independent of man.

I did.  The right to do what you want.  To think how you like.

[Thrawn 538]

An asshole?!? 🤷‍♂️

 

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

I did.  The right to do what you want.  To think how you like.

Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

[BrickHorn 18176]

34 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Natural rights had existed in many cultures around the globe for 1,000s of years

Ancient Naturalist: I’m being persecuted for exercising my natural rights!

Modern Naturalist: Which rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Ancient Naturalist: No, not those natural rights.

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

How so?  Again, take it to the beginning.  

I live alone in the remote wilderness...who is the "man" labeling them as rights?  How is everything I do not my natural right?  

I my mind, we are just animals, and we can choose to live within societal rules or live alone under our own.  

[BrickHorn 18176]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

…and takes measures to enforce them or punish their violation.

Many posters on this thread muddle the distinction between morality (guidelines for how humans should behave) and rights (rules defining how humans are compelled, by agreement or authority, to behave).

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

How so?  Again, take it to the beginning.  

I live alone in the remote wilderness...who is the "man" labeling them as rights?  How is everything I do not my natural right?  

I my mind, we are just animals, and we can choose to live within societal rules or live alone under our own.  

If you live alone in the remote wilderness, rights don't matter. Rights only come into play when you encounter one or more human animals. Then the definition of rights becomes vitally important. That's politics. 

[DixonHur 11074]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Ancient Naturalist: I’m being persecuted for exercising my natural rights!

Except, the point is they weren't being persecuted at all.

I can't believe I'm having to say this in regard to @David Dennison, but these views are very Euro-centric.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Except, the point is they weren't being persecuted at all.

I can't believe I'm having to say this in regard to @David Dennison, but these views are very Euro-centric.

Until . . . 

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

If you live alone in the remote wilderness, rights don't matter. Rights only come into play when you encounter one or more human animals. Then the definition of rights becomes vitally important. That's politics. 

So how do you explain the people who had coexisted for 1000's of years without formal laws or political structures?

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

So how do you explain the people who had coexisted for 1000's of years without formal laws or political structures?

I would argue they coexisted with informal laws and political structures.

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Until . . . 

Again, that's a modernist view that discounts the facts of human existence prior to the present.  

In the modern world, I tend to agree, but my point is that it hasn't always been the case...ergo, natural rights exist, they are simply not practiced in modern society.

[BrickHorn 18176]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Again, that's a modernist view that discounts the facts of human existence prior to the present.  

In the modern world, I tend to agree, but my point is that it hasn't always been the case...ergo, natural rights exist, they are simply not practiced in modern society.

If natural rights exist but are not practiced in modern society, what are they? And how are they in any sense a “right” if not enforceable? Comprehensive list, please.

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I would argue they coexisted with informal laws and political structures.

Well, the historical record disagrees with you.

I'd recommend reading the book The Dawn of Everything.  It's a fascinating read, and while it may not change your mind, I found it to be very enlightening.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Well, the historical record disagrees with you.

I'd recommend reading the book The Dawn of Everything.  It's a fascinating read, and while it may not change your mind, I found it to be very enlightening.

Decentralized politics is still politics. 

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

If natural rights exist but are not practiced in modern society, what are they? And how are they in any sense a “right” if not enforceable? Comprehensive list, please.

So you're arguing for the might makes right philosophy?  

It's ok, if you are, it's certainly a legitimate point of view.  

[DixonHur 11074]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Decentralized politics is still politics. 

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

[YChang 3430]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Eventually it can be! 😄

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Yes.

[troph 24547]

Just spitballing but I think there are natural rights but they are quite limited and not immune from interference. The right to live, consume, procreate, move about, decide for ourselves, the right to create, and frankly to die. I think they more closely align with natural laws and even instincts. Man can and does interfere, the more powerful can and do interfere.
 

Man made rights are intended to pause, limit or stop that interference and to further define those limited rights. Privacy is a man made concept but it’s borne from the notion that we can do what we want, go where we want to go, do what we want to do.

There are natural consequences to the exercise or interference with those rights, those consequences can include death, conflict, just about anything. I think humans fuck it up with each other and suffer consequences much like humans fuck with the natural right of other inhabitants of the Earth to everyone’s detriment. Maybe that’s more natural laws but I don’t know that the two are that much different. The natural world includes humans and when we fuck with those laws fuck with those inherent rights that are an output of those laws bad shit happens.

[Captainant 27310]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Well if someone disagrees with you about it on the Daily Texan, it somehow transmutes into politics. Very strange phenomenon 

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Yes.

Well, if every interaction between two human beings is politics then there's no way to debate the topic any further.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Well, if every interaction between two human beings is politics then there's no way to debate the topic any further.

I mean, interaction between groups and individuals is the basic definition of politics. 

[DixonHur 11074]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well if someone disagrees with you about it on the Daily Texan, it somehow transmutes into politics. Very strange phenomenon 

Even stranger than confusing the Cloak Room with the Daily Texan? 😉

[Captainant 27310]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Even stranger than confusing the Cloak Room with the Daily Texan? 😉

No I know I'm in the CR lol, just moreso commenting that it's a trend to label any sort of disagreement or negotiation as "politcs" as soon as a participant runs out of things to say. Especially for something like trade or economics

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I mean, interaction between groups and individuals is the basic definition of politics. 

That's a pretty cynical view of life. 

I mean, if you add the intention to govern or influence behavior, then yes, otherwise it's just an interaction.

But I'd also add that politics, in and of itself, is not a danger to rights.  It's only when you add an enforcement mechanism that rights get trampled.

 

[BrickHorn 18176]

18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you're arguing for the might makes right philosophy?  

It's ok, if you are, it's certainly a legitimate point of view.  

No. I’m asking you what, specifically, are these natural rights that totally exist but nobody knows about or respects and we probably wouldn’t know them because they live in Canada. 

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[David Dennison 18605]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No I know I'm in the CR lol, just moreso commenting that it's a trend to label any sort of disagreement or negotiation as "politcs" as soon as a participant runs out of things to say. Especially for something like trade or economics

I'll bite. How is trade not political?

[Walser 1103]

What the fuck is going on in here?

[BrickHorn 18176]

34 minutes ago, troph said:

Just spitballing but I think there are natural rights but they are quite limited and not immune from interference. The right to live, consume, procreate, move about, decide for ourselves, the right to create, and frankly to die.

Thanks for being the first participant in this thread to attempt to list the natural rights. Kudos. But now let’s examine the claim. 

Many of the alleged natural rights you listed have not been recognized or respected as rights at all in various cultures and periods throughout history. For example, human sacrifice (a common facet of life most recently in Mesoamerica) rejects living as a right. Even in the modern era, we deny the alleged “right” to life during wartime. There is no recourse for killing enemy combatants or inadvertently killing civilians in a conflict. Many societies throughout history have castrated slaves, reflecting a rejection of the supposed natural right to procreate. 

So what makes any of these things a natural right? I would argue it’s clear that they have at many points not been rights at all; that is, there was no authority protecting them or punishing their infringement. You might argue that murder and castration were always immoral. But even granting that premise for sake of argument, these moral principles do not amount to a right because there was no enforcement recourse. 

The idea of a “natural right” is defensible, at most, as a shorthand for certain moral principles that seem obvious to most people. But even then, their inviolability quickly crumbles on close inspection. What you end up with is a series of nuanced, context-dependent guidelines. Our shared moral instincts developed through evolutionary processes and are almost never as simple and idealistic as we would like to believe.

The world is gray. If you wish it were not and invoking the magical little elves of naturalism help you sleep at night, so be it. But you’ll forever be fighting paradoxes of your own making. It’s more useful to recognize human behavior for what it is and understand morality and legal regimes as tools for guiding that behavior in the most positive direction possible. 

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[troph 24547]

10 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Thanks for being the first participant in this thread to attempt to list the natural rights. Kudos. But now let’s examine the claim. 

Many of the alleged natural rights you listed have not been recognized or respected as rights at all in various cultures and periods throughout history. For example, human sacrifice (a common facet of life most recently in Mesoamerica) rejects living as a right. Even in the modern era, we deny the alleged “right” to life during wartime. There is no recourse for killing enemy combatants or inadvertently killing civilians in a conflict. Many societies throughout history have castrated slaves, reflecting a rejection of the supposed natural right to procreate. 

So what makes any of these things a natural right? I would argue it’s clear that they have at many points not been rights at all; that is, there was no authority protecting them or punishing their infringement. You might argue that murder and castration were always immoral. But even granting that premise for sake of argument, these moral principles do not amount to a right because there was no enforcement recourse. 

The idea of a “natural right” is defensible, at most, as a shorthand for certain moral principles that seem obvious to most people. But even then, their inviolability quickly crumbles on close inspection. What you end up with is a series of nuanced, context-dependent guidelines. Our shared moral instincts developed through evolutionary processes and are almost never as simple and idealistic as we would like to believe.

The world is gray. If you wish it were not and invoking the magical little elves of naturalism help you sleep at night, so be it. But you’ll forever be fighting paradoxes of your own making. It’s more useful to recognize human behavior for what it is and understand morality and legal regimes as tools for guiding that behavior in the most positive direction possible. 

A right does not mean it cannot be interfered with. I think the morality of it is due to the fact that these rights or instincts even are universally respected as desired and core to the human experience. I think humans are a violent, filthy species that run roughshod over others - indiscriminately based on power and not even species type. I think that interference has varying degrees of risk and consequence. Putin can do what he wants, he may FAFO or he may not. Looks like as close as he was to the FO stage he’s inching back into the FA stage.
 

I think there is something to what humans consider moral which transcends cultures, religion or even no religion, not perfectly but enough for me to see some natural law, instinct or right. I think these principles often show up in the animal kingdom apart from humans. I think there is something to the natural order that illicit  the concepts of these “rights”. 

but again, the existence does not preclude interference and other humans have made it their role to protect these rights precisely because of their universality across time and culture and because of the universality of human interference.

*btw believing in natural order and systems doesn’t mean I believe in magical gnomes. The ad hominem jab was unnecessary. 

Edited February 24 by troph

[956 Worldwide 34313]

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

That's a pretty cynical view of life. 

I mean, if you add the intention to govern or influence behavior, then yes, otherwise it's just an interaction.

But I'd also add that politics, in and of itself, is not a danger to rights.  It's only when you add an enforcement mechanism that rights get trampled.

 

You’ve gotten yourself ensnared in a discussion grounded in Marxist Theory. 
 

It may be cold comfort to know that that each time the cage of bourgeois morality and ethics, the reptiles inside usually eat the theorists first. They’ve reasoned their way into this but the lizard-brained among us just FEEL it. 
 

We can all concede that all of human interaction and society boils down to a biting contest but not many of us want to admit that the crocodiles always win that one. 

[softlynow 1774]

8 minutes ago, Walser said:

What the fuck is going on in here?

People who believe in made up things are being asked to defend themselves.

[DixonHur 11074]

29 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I’m asking you what, specifically, are these natural rights that totally exist but nobody knows about or respects and we probably wouldn’t know them because they live in Canada. 

I guess the right for you to miss the other 2 times I've posted the specific rights would be a natural right.

[Hookah Horns 3058]

7 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

This is 100% spot on. Many of the Founders were "Deist" -- a worldview counter to mere "faith" and "revelation", in favor of rational thinking, empirical evidence, and overall general Enlightenment ideals of the era. The Founders were very imperfect, to be sure, and rife with contradictions (ie, slavery and conquest of indigenous peoples).

However, science played a key role in the overall thought of the Founders and how they set up of the Constitution/Division of Powers, etc. See the book, Science and the Founding Fathers by Bernard Cohen (in Amazon, the summary is excellent).

That belief in general science and evidence is one reason the VERY FIRST LINE in the First Amendment mandates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Christian Nationalists utterly ignore that line, like they ignore any evidence that counters their fanaticism. 

Let me add to the posts above:

1) "Christian Nationalists" are, in fact and deed, Christian theocrats. They hide behind the seemingly patriotic term of "nationalists." They 100% want an American theocracy, in which they rule the nation under the Bible. For them, in their historical ignorance, the Bible is the foundation for America and trumps any secular laws or science.

-- Hence, we will see much more anti-science lunacy followed by tyranny based in the lunacy and madness.

2) These are not fake Christians. They believe that God ordained that America be a Christian nation ruled by the church, at the very outset. That can only mean that God/Christianity approved of the genocide/ethic cleansing of the indigenous peoples living in the "Americas" prior to 1492. Racism and White Supremacy are 100% at the very start of America. It was never about peace and love, until after conquest, colonization, and conversion to Christianity. In their irrational conquest for "purity," they have proven to be barbaric and blood thirsty. 

-- Surly posters, please spare the apologia based in cherry-picking verses from the Bible and Sunday School, and noting a few good deeds done for those already colonized. MAGA-GQP-Evangelicals-Fundamentalists-Creationists are not fake Christians. 

I don't follow your argument that they're not fake Christians. These people would call Jesus a woke snowflake cuck pussy to his face.

You seem to be saying that the original breed of Christianity in America was also hypocritical and fake. I can get down with that. 

But I disagree that they want to rule under the Bible. They want to rule under Bible verses cherry picked mostly from the Old Testament. 

[DixonHur 11074]

11 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The world is gray.

Says the man thinking in black and white terms.

[BrickHorn 18176]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

A right does not mean it cannot be interfered with. I think the morality of it is due to the fact that these rights or instincts even are universally respected as desired and core to the human experience.

Okay. To be clear: what you’re talking about is not a “right;” it’s a moral principle. A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority (whatever form that may take). 

And to address your substantive point: I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the moral principles you listed are universally respected. For each, there are examples of time periods and societies in which that was not true. For some, it may not even be true today in our own society (e.g., the right to live is not recognized in all cases, as there are many, many exceptions).

[troph 24547]

The founding fathers were deists. They were also elite, slaving owning, women owning, poor hating, indigenous people killing assholes. I mean I’m glad they rose up and won, I’m glad they created a representative republic, but they were not a lite version of Jesus incarnate like the Christian nationalists like to portray them as. 

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority

No, it doesn't.  

If this were the case there would be no such thing as a "right" because as you point out not all cultures agree on what the rights are.

[troph 24547]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Okay. To be clear: what you’re talking about is not a “right;” it’s a moral principle. A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority (whatever form that may take). 

And to address your substantive point: I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the moral principles you listed are universally respected. For each, there are examples of time periods and societies in which that was not true. For some, it may not even be true today in our own society (e.g., the right to live is not recognized in all cases, as there are many, many exceptions).

I’ve already said these natural rights are born out of natural law and in some aspects are evident in our and other animal instincts. I believe they are not man made. I don’t even believe they are specific to humans. I believe in natural order. I think much of what ails us is a failure to respect and enforce that order. I think that order involves rights to exist within that order. 

As for enforcement, even in lawless societies if you take the right to live away from a person you might lose yours. You said it is gray why are you making it black and white? 

Edited February 24 by troph

[BrickHorn 18176]

Just now, DixonHur said:

No, it doesn't.  

If this were the case there would be no such thing as a "right" because as you point out not all cultures agree on what the rights are.

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

[troph 24547]

5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians. Men interfere with that right but they cannot stop you absent killing you or cutting out your throat. But the law to imprison you does not take that natural right away. And speech is an outgrowth of free thought. That one can only be stopped by murder. 
 

you are talking about the respect for natural laws and natural order not the creation of the right, the law or order. 
 

nature has made man with the capability and the autonomy to say what he or she or they want to. It starts there not with man made laws to stop or allow interference.

Edited February 24 by troph

[BrickHorn 18176]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

You said it is gray why are you making it black and white? 

You’re confusing two different issues. Human behavior and morality is gray. Whether natural rights exist is a black and white question. And the grayness of human morality resolves the question cleanly: because natural rights require a black and white morality independent of time and place, the grayness of human morality in fact demonstrates that natural rights do not exist.  

1 minute ago, troph said:

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians.

Well I’m sure Navalny and his surviving family will be relieved to hear that.

[softlynow 1774]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

You’ve gotten yourself ensnared in a discussion grounded in Marxist Theory. 
 

It may be cold comfort to know that that each time the cage of bourgeois morality and ethics, the reptiles inside usually eat the theorists first. They’ve reasoned their way into this but the lizard-brained among us just FEEL it. 
 

We can all concede that all of human interaction and society boils down to a biting contest but not many of us want to admit that the crocodiles always win that one. 

This is coming across as resentment of your inability to defend your position. Just FYI.

Your strongest point has been that jettisoning our framework for ordering society would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, that point only proves your opponent’s position to be true. Without human enforcement of rights, they are not operative. Meaning they do not exist, or they are meaningless.

Also, saying “natural rights don’t exist” doesn’t (for all of us) mean that we want to ditch that construct as a call to action. Keeping it makes it easier to communicate with the masses and many decision-makers who lack the flexibility of thought to question the “truths” they’ve grown up knowing. I just think it’s best to not be deluded into thinking we don’t have to work at keeping and protecting those rights we hold dear.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, troph said:

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians. Men interfere with that right but they cannot stop you absent killing your or cutting out your throat. But the law to imprison you does not take that natural right away. And speech is an outgrowth of free thought. That one can only be stopped by murder. 

According to your definition, everything is a right.