christian nationalism

US military conquest of the world Ridiculous idea, of course not. Nothing could be further from the spirit of Christianity. Christianity has no use for the world. What would we do with it? The majority of people are not believers and you can't force belief, it has to come from within. We'd like to have freedom of influence in the world, though, both to bring people to Christ where possible, and to be salt and light, which means basically trying to influence unbelievers against anti-God policies that only hasten their demise. I don't understand the Reconstructionists who think we're supposed to take the world for Christ. About all I can say for them is that they aren't suggesting doing it in a violent way as Islam does.Infiltration of US government for subversive purposes -- Such as ??? INFILTRATION? How does a US citizen "infiltrate" his own government which is supposed to be "government of by and for the people?" The government is "infiltrated" or influenced every day by all kinds of officials and lobbyists and citizens with all kinds of agendas I don't approve of. That's democracy.Elimination of Public Education I'm for Christians educating their own children, taking them out of the public schools en masse, either for homeschooling or founding more Christian schools, because Public Education is no longer of any value to Christians. Beyond that, no opinion about Public Education. Most people in this country are unaware of the fact that elementary school education in this country originally used the Bible as a text, and the catechisms and confessions of Protestantism, that's how dominantly Christian the nation was. Enough Christian aura remained even after the public school system got going so that Christians accepted it, although one prescient spokesman of the 19th century, A.A. Hodge, had strongly warned that the system was only going to operate as an incubator for secularism and Christians were foolish to accept it. Execution of certian groups according to Biblical Law (as they interpret) Groups? Biblical law doesn't command execution of groups. Laws against things like homosexual acts, yes, if that's the sort of thing you're thinking of. Such laws -- sodomy laws, blue laws -- were on the books of many American states until recently (which might be some evidence there for the claim that the US was originally a Christian nation) Execution? Not that I know of. Preventing the political support of such things as gay marriage is crucially important however, because that is complicity in their sin, and it puts the entire nation under God's judgment. Just as legalized abortion does. Anything the nation legalizes that is a sin brings judgment against the nation. Support of Racism Racism is completely at odds with the Bible. All human beings are descended from Adam, all are fallen, all in need of Christ's redemption and regeneration. Psycological support of Authoritarianism Authoritarianism was conceptualized by the Marxist anti-Western civilization group, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, of which Theodor Adorno was a major member. That organization aimed consciously to undermine western civilization. Its mission seems to have been to demonize valid authority. It was no doubt a Jewish overreaction against Nazism -- baby out with the bathwater in spades -- but its effect overall has been to contribute to the whole political correctness mess that has been the legacy of the sixties. Another member of that group, Herbert Marcuse, exerted his influence against tradition in the sexual sphere with his "Eros and Civilization." Wilhelm Reich was another sexual liberationist member of that group. I have no idea what "authoritarianism" is supposed to mean otherwise, a perversion of authority maybe? But the book called into question authority as such somehow anyway. That authority can be abused is nothing new, if that's what it means. Humanity is fallen, so no surprises there. But authority after all implies ultimately the authority of God. It's hard to imagine a more defining idea of God than authority. So we are very pro authority -- rightly constituted and just authority, and authoritarianism has nothing to do with this.And what do you mean by "psychological" support? Some kind of mental disorder? Christians generally recognize themselves as sinners formerly in rebellion against the authority of God, now struggling with that natural/fallen disposition against authority to embrace God's perfect will. So whatever you're talking about it's not a natural psychological state. Elimination of Freedom of Religion Of course not. The very concept came out of Christianity. HOWEVER, I do agree with the Reconstructionists that religions not merely opposed but actually hostile to Christianity would not have been allowed equal status if the 98-99% Christian population at the time of the founding, and the 98 or so% Christian membership of the founding fathers themselves, some 200 or so, had had any clue that the first amendment could have been misconstrued as it has been. Freedom to practice their religion, yes, but no freedom to achieve a position from which to suppress Chrsitianity, or even be treated as equal to Christianity (because that will ALWAYS lead to the suppression of Christianity), which is in fact what is happening. Institutionalized bias against homosexuality What do you mean by "institutionalized?" Homosexual acts are sin according to God. Homosexual people are sinners in need of kind treatment and salvation like everybody else. Control over all scholarship, so that research and conclusions must be approved by religious bodies ??? I don't see how this could even be possible given the conflicts between religious bodies. But in principle I don't see the point either.I also don't see how you got most of those things off that NPR interview.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The concept of authoritarianism is a paranoid demonization of all authority, especially Christian authority, that came out of Jewish overreaction to Nazism, expressed in the studies of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and highly influential in America in the 60s. It's just a made-up category. If you disliked the labeling of homosexuality as a disease, well this one is exactly the same kind of thing, only from the other side of the political divide. Oh brother. Talk about your conspiracy theories. By the way many racial groups depict Jesus in the form of their own characteristics. I have some paintings of a black Jesus I think are good art. Actually I have some black and white copies of same, would like to have decent color prints of them. First you have to have some evidence for ANY of this stuff you are doling out here. This is just one big paranoid fantasy to my ear. What are you talking about? There are some VERY PARTICULAR SPECIFIC AREAS that science has gotten involved in that appear to challenge the Bible, and these and ONLY THESE are a problem for Christians. Maybe we would if we had half a clue what you are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There isn't a shred of hate. And I wonder if your remark is about that emotion anyway. I've come to believe it's a formula that people apply to certain ideas, and has nothing whatever to do with the attitude of hate. It's just a definition, a label that political correctness slapped on certain ways of thinking it opposes. In fact I think it's a clever ploy, a way of poisoning the well against certain ideas to prevent people from taking them seriously.What do you think?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My point is that the term "hate" as used first in this thread, I forget by whom, RQB or something like that? - is just a species of formulaic political correctness the left likes to tar the right with. Actual hatred is a human feeling and we all hate all kinds of things, things we regard as evil, but this politically correct usage has nothing to do with the feeling of hatred. This is how jar uses it in his new thread:http://EvC Forum: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution. -->EvC Forum: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.Nothing but a smear of one's political opponents, casting their views in terms of a personal failure rather than rational consideration of what is good for society which is how those who oppose gay marriage look at it. The left loves emotional accusations, ad hominems, character assassination and demagoguery that whips up hatred for the right among the liberals faster than anything -- speaking of actual hatred.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, some rewriting for the sake of clarity

Freedom never meant that anyone could do what he liked. That is one way the idea is seriously distorted these days. It never meant having the right to demand some special status from the government, the right to force the majority to accord you a status you believe you should have, the right to anything more than protection of your life and liberty to live as you choose -- and even then, only within the criminal law and community standards.When you get into demanding that the historic definition of marriage be altered to suit your tiny minority lifestyle and falsify its clear meaning over the millennia you have left the domain of natural rights and freedoms. Gay marriage by the way isn't even a specially Christian cause. It may be Christians who most feel the meaning of it in this day and age, but no society ever considered such a thing in the past, no pagan society, no other religion, nobody at all ever. It is insane to treat it as a right and freedom. Common sense ought to tell all you nonChristians this. But something is terribly twisted in the meaning of these fundamentals these days so that you get all up in arms against this enemy you've concocted, a false enemy of a false notion of rights and freedoms.And I do not consider Jar a Christian. Sorry, but it has to be said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We absolutely dispute the whole concept of a "couple" in teh sense of a married couople. Yes. Absolutely. It is not a valid category. It is an absurd and twisted idea. Equal status in relation to this idea is a lie, a sham, a stupidity. That's like saying anybody can call themselves a "couple," children, adult with child, even animals if you like.Nobody said they can't live together. They cannot appropriate the covenant of marriage to their living together. It is YOUR "bunch" you twisted lefties, YOU are the threat to freedom in this country. YOU are the violators and twisters of the Constitution. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Left has turned language and history and law upside down, and the younger generation has swallowed it whole -- the destruction of the very meaning of rights and freedoms. YOU are destroying this nation. YOU are violating the concept of the First Amendment.

Marriage presupposes the ability to GENERATE a family. The whole thing is about bringing the two sexes together (oh yeah and the next stupidity is about how some heterosexuals don't have children. Can't wait for that one. Really can't answer it yourself?)This is about the destruction of civilization ultimately. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I already commented that I knew somebody would bring up the stupid case of heteros who can't or choose not to procreate, but you never read a thread before you respond, even back a few posts it appears.The ability to generate a family means the PRINCIPLE of heterosexuality. The actuality is not crucial. I'm talking about the MEANING of marriage within the culture.

Well, Nero thought of entering into a gay marriage himself, as one of his little jokes, but I don't know of any culture that seriously treated it as an acceptable arrangement, do you? Hey, it may be possible that some miserable little tribe somewhere made that mistake. Do you have the specifics?Always the feminist slant. No, marriage is the uniting of male and female. Goes back to Eden. Property considerations are something extra added on by fallen humanity, not part of the definition.What you are calling civil rights is not civil rights, that is the whole point. You and others are asking for special rights, not civil rights, though you don't mind defining it in this new way no sane society ever before entertained. But ours is no longer a sane society. I guess I should just acknowledge that and let it disintegrate without my complaining about it. Takes too much energy to no purpose.Churches never demanded the right to be tax exempt that I'm aware of. Christianity was long long ago considered to be a benefit to the nation and that was the reason for it. Now people would rather favor accommodations that are not only not a benefit but actually a detriment to the nation, a step on the way to its destruction. Well, hey, who am I to stand in the way of progress. Make churches pay taxes, give gays marriage rights, turn the whole world upside down. That's the kind of world you want, you and all the rest of the liberals. Have at it. Bring it all down. I'll just try to ignore you.

How very very odd that the Founders didn't just start out defining their work in your terms, took out the majority-rule stuff, and explicitly made sure that civil rights includes what some of us recognize not to be civil rights at all but special rights over the majority's rights. Ah well. Obviously they should have. That's what all you liberals think.

You are one of the crowd here that has no clue what a circular argument is.And children should not be able to marry because they are children. And close relatives should not be able to maarry because they are close relatives. And people should not be able to marry animals because, well.

You are talking about special rights and calling them civil rights. It's all the usual liberal word magic.

Of course not.Children need both sexes for parents. Creating some weird genetic adaptation in order for gays to deny the physical facts just adds to the basic craziness.Of course some gays do a fine job of parenting, and some even better than some hetero parents. It is still not the best choice for children, all other things being equal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No my answer had absolutely nothing to do with medical technology. It's the PRINCIPLE of heterosexuality I'm talking about. They may NEVER have children, for WHATEVER reason, yet they are qualified for marriage and gays are not.

They are special rights because they aim to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and foist it on the public consciousness Emperor's New Clothes style; they create a pretense of a status gays are not qualified for. And historically no culture has ever countenanced such a crazy idea.But I suppose our Brave New Society will. We're going to do every crazy thing that no society ever did before and call it a civil right, against all the saner voices trying to bring some reason into the situation.