Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 388
#121
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
My problem is that CN seems to be pushing not so much a Christian agenda as a deeply conservative one.   They don't seem too interested in 'love thy neighbour' or '"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God";  they do seem very keen on anti-feminism, 'anti-gayism' and anti-Darwinism!

I think 'social conservatism' and 'religious conseratism' are blurry categories, but I'm seeing social conservatives using religion.   

I know what I mean but I'm not expressing it very well... !



Topic's author
#122
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
My problem is that CN seems to be pushing not so much a Christian agenda as a deeply conservative one.
I won't disagree with that. The issue I have is that,  instead of making a case for their political views/social views/ignorance, an appeal to a common religious view is being exploited.The credulity of *some* believers is being used against them. 

#123
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
That's more or less that I was getting at..!  It relates to my 'niceness' posts - they are hooking into the idea that if its Christian it must be good, and that not supporting their backward-looking policies is 'unchristian' and bad.  

#124
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
None of what you posted contradicts the following.

Leviticus 25:44-46 

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Case closed.

First off, no, it's not closed. You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up. You just can't overlook that. If abuse is not allowed, then the servant scenario for the foreigner is not an intolerable situation. A foreign servant can also become wealthy themselves, and actually have a Hebrew servant if the scenario called for it. And the Hebrew servant would be under the same 7 year rule.  In fact, probably, all texts considered, the foreign servant may have less restrictions than the Hebrew servant in terms of a mandatory serving time.

The Hebrews that were able to purchase a foreign servant had to be wealthy. And that meant an ideal living arraingment for the foreign servant. The master was required to take care of the foreign servant. Most of the time the foreign servant probably preferred to stay, because his lifestyle compared to remaining a slave in the market, or being sold to abusive foreigners would be far better.

The mistake people make is to assume the servants in each scenario wants out, when most likely it was the polar opposite. This was the ancient middle east. They didn't have missions, flop-houses, homeless shelters, the YMCA, or former college buddies that can put them up.


What you're doing here is fairly common when arguing about biblical slavery. The argument often starts out with all biblical references to slavery (servanthood) being evil. So sometimes when the Hebrew servant scenario is explained, the person just moves on to the next servant situation, (like the foreign slave, the slave beaten by a rod, etc.). So then the question becomes why are they moving on? Have they agreed that the Hebrew servant scenario is not an example of new world type slavery, and thus move on to the foreign slave where they think the same argument still applies?

Why have you moved on? You say this scenario is a case closer. Have you abandoned that position concerning the punished with a rod servant?



#125
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?
#126
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?

A modern POW is generally a combatant and would be repatriated at the end of hostilities.  The US did not have the war aim of of killimg all the men and enslaving the women!  

We see something similar happening in Nigeria today.

#127
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
To be honest, I'm not sure what you need another source for, you obviously accept
religiously themed copy-pasta laws are a thing. Also, "Christian Nationalism" is actually in the title of this thread, but here at post 110 you reject the term?

I feel as though you're not being intellectually honest. I don't want to waste a lot of my time if you are only interested in what jibes with your beliefs and not what's actually true.

For what it's worth, rights cannot negate the rights of others. Freedom of religion does not include using  government to advertise beliefs. It does not include treating homosexuals (or any group of humans) differently than others. It does not include the freedom from criticism. It simply means you are free to believe and worship as you please, (so long as that doesn't take away the rights of others) and government
has no religious beliefs.
I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society. I think we've had this conversation before at the other forum (I'm assuming you're SkepticAlone). The humanists are doing the same thing. Atheist activists do the same thing. You don't think the FFRF (who I think you're a member of) is doing the same thing? What about The Atheist Experience? The most obnoxious talk show format I've ever seen. I thought sports talk hosts were bad. They're attempting to influence it's listeners by talking over the caller, trying to make the caller look as stupid as possible, play like they're so upset at the views of the caller even though they targeted the caller by what he tells the screener. They (admittedly) pick and choose which caller by who they think will be more scandalous.

And the usage of the term Christian Nationalism further discredits them. I most definitely oppose it. What are religiously copy-pasta laws?

Topic's author
#128
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?
Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?

In short, the US has agreements with other countries regarding prisoners of war, thus captivity is legal (provided certain conditions are met) and not to be confused with kidnapping. 



#129
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think you're giving the wrong argument. They weren't commanded to murder virgins.
#130
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
You do realize this is a resolution and not a law, right? What issue do you have with it?
Yes, but so what?

My issue parallels this.

More than two dozen doctors, counselors, activists, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom. “Religious leaders have the constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling,” they wrote.
Topic's author
#131
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society.
Here is an article from Religious News Service. The terms (with the exception of "Christian Nationalists") is softer, but the message is the same. Here is another from Baptist News Global: LINK

What are religiously copy-pasta laws?


"In God We Trust" bills introduced in 6 states all this year. 
#132
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
These Christians understand it as I do: LINK
I'm well acquainted with Tony Campolo. He at one point became very critical of the Christian church. And has taken on unorthodox views. He's what one would call a liberal Christian. But, he probably is right in some things. Some things I probably would agree with him on.

This wouldn't be one of them though. It's a name chosen to accuse high profile Christians of pushing for a theocracy. And I think I discussed this with you as well. It doesn't make sense. There's never been a Christian theocracy. It's either been a denominational theocracy, or a specific church theocracy. This is something Christians in America had opposed from the beginning until now.

Unfortunately Campolo and company just blindly adapt the word. It's really very silly.
#133
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?

In short, the US has agreements with other countries regarding prisoners of war, thus captivity is legal (provided certain conditions are met) and not to be confused with kidnapping.Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?

Not really. This is what stuck out, so I commented. I'll go back and look at what else you stated.

This is a terrible argument by the way. Were the Hebrews breaking the law when they purchased foreign servants?

Topic's author
#134
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
More than two dozen doctors, counselors, activists, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom. “Religious leaders have the constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling,” they wrote.

Religious freedom does not give anyone the right to marginalize others, so there is no violation of religious freedom in asking for better.

#135
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society.
Here is anarticle from Religious News Service. The terms (with the exception of "Christian Nationalists") is softer, but the message is the same. Here is another from Baptist News Global: LINK

What are religiously copy-pasta laws?

"In God We Trust" bills introduced in 6 states all this year. 
I'll look at the article when I get a chance.

As far as "In God We Trust" on bills.

Having that inscription on a bill does nothing for anyone. It doesn't make the unit more valuable. If it's a one dollar bill, it's only going to give a dollars worth of fuel at the pump no matter what it says.

Simply put, rather than this being a conspiracy, many Christians feel that anything that was once accepted and thus removed, like Christian slogans should not have been removed because all they do is display a cultural heritage. I don't personally think the slogan should be mandatory. I don't think the slogan was even original. Something eventually added on. So yeah, I don't agree with everything they propose. But, they are hardly conspiracy theory material.
#136
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Religious freedom does not give anyone the right to marginalize others, so there is no violation of religious freedom in asking for better.
Being that the cake shop owner, floral business owner, and wedding photographer were minding their own business, never wanted publicity, were friends with the same sex couple (the floral business owner), made clear that they were not denying business based on sexual orientation, only refused to design their product specifically for a same sex union, were harassed, put on public display, it's clear that they were the victims.

One thing that really stands out in the general debate of this topic, is double-standard. For a group to protest a relatively unseen statue of Jesus on a ski resort, and not protest a Buddhist owned meditation program introduced into public schools, that's a huge double-standard.

What is clear is that atheist activist groups are attempting to push for (influence) Americans away from religion. They feel that Christians need to change their mind on issues like homosexuality. These groups are not remotely interested in preserving religious freedom. The constitution is used merely as a tool to try and adjust it to fit the society that they're pushing for.

Topic's author
#137
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Were the Hebrews breaking the law when they purchased foreign servants?
First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.

#138
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
@RoderickSpode
As I said earlier, I don't think that 'Christian Nationalists' really want to impose Christian values.  They want to turn the clock back to an imaginary golden age (about 1955!) when things were much simpler!   I suspect that, in reality, 1955 was pretty bad, but in mind ofthe CNs is the picture of an America of happy families wuith the man the unisputed head of the house, his wife a dutiful home-maker and the kids well-scubbed and respectful. 


Topic's author
#139
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The constitution is used merely as a tool to try and adjust it to fit the society that they're pushing for.
The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).

Topic's author
#140
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I have no trouble believing many white evangelicals perceive that era to have been an ideal environment for happiness. It's a bit of rose tinted nostalgia though.
Topic's author
#141
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Simply put, rather than this being a conspiracy, many Christians feel that anything that was once accepted and thus removed, like Christian slogans should not have been removed because all they do is display a cultural heritage. I don't personally think the slogan should be mandatory. I don't think the slogan was even original. Something eventually added on. So yeah, I don't agree with everything they propose. But, they are hardly conspiracy theorymaterial.
I'm glad to hear that, Rod. "In God We Trust" is not original (and not representative of a culture which existed before the 1950's or all Americans in any time period) and is something that doesn't belong when it comes to government empowered by a pluralistic society.

I encourage you to look over the additional sources (absent any demonstrable bias against Christianity). I agree, there is no conspiracy as that would require it to be a secret...

Topic's author
#142
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
These Christians understand it as I do: LINK
I'm well acquainted with Tony Campolo. 
Are you dismissing every other name mentioned because you find Mr. Campolo's views distasteful? That's not reasonable, if so.
#143
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
Maybe it ties in with the MAGA thing.. it is 'make america great again', harking back to that mythical golden age...
Topic's author
#144
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I would say it does tie with MAGA, although I would say coincidentally. I imagine Trump envisioned a time before heavy regulation in which business was less accountable. CN longed for the days when Christianity was championed over the "godless communism". 
#145
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Christians are not the only religion in the US. Get over your bigotry. 
#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, no, it's not closed. You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up.
Citation please.

What you're describing sounds like voluntary slavery, which is a clear contradiction in terms.
Topic's author
#147
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Either Roderick doesn't know this law only applied to Israelites (and not unbelieving foreigners) or he is being dishonest in trying to equate all slavery in the Bible to indentured servitude.


#148
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
One does wonder what rights captured 'wives' had.  In any case where could they go?  All their menfolk had been slaughtered and their homes razed.
     

Topic's author
#149
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
Indeed. 

The notion that the laws of Israel were universal is mistaken. Israelites did not ignore the 10 commandments when they took slaves or committed genocide - it was understood Mosaic laws  (unless explicitly stated otherwise) only applied to Israelites and offered no protection for non-believers. 

Whatever its faults, at least America was founded on principles striving toward equal rights for everyone. The conflation of Biblical and American values is to deny this.
#150
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
THe bible describes ways in which people can be passed on as property like jewelry or furniture. THe question then becomes pretty stark: is it now or was it ever moral (this is different than "allowed" or even "sanctioned by god") to own a person in this way? Where you could leave them to your child like you would a goat? Because people as property = slaves. Calling them "unpaid contract laborers with severe limitations on their personal freedoms" can be shortened to "slave." These apologetics for it are just straight embarassing. "Yeah, but they got to live in the house!" or "Wives! Not sex slaves!" 

THe problem is that they cannot simply say "The moral code in the bible, even if every word of the bible were straight tap truth, does not apply today." 

ETA I know I am not arguing with you, you seem to agree with me.