Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   christian nationalism
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 110 (315579)
05-27-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
05-27-2006 9:18 AM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
You are talking about special rights and calling them civil rights. It's all the usual liberal word magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 05-27-2006 9:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 05-27-2006 9:25 AM Faith has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 110 (315580)
05-27-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
05-27-2006 9:22 AM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
Please explain how they are special rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 9:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:34 PM nator has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 63 of 110 (315582)
05-27-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
05-26-2006 7:38 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
Apologies if you've answered the question I'm sheepishly about to ask, but I got rather excited when I saw that you had written and felt compelled to write.
You say:
(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?)
I'd really like to hear your thoughts on why this isn't a valid argument. It always looked pretty good to me. I'm assuming by "don't" you mean "can't" - because that's how I would have phrased it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 05-26-2006 7:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 64 of 110 (315584)
05-27-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
05-26-2006 7:38 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
Right - I've caught up with your answer.
You think that even a relationship between two infertile heterosexuals is in the spirit of marriage because if they were both fertile then children might result. As medical technology becomes more advanced, we see this increasingly.
I guess I know your answer to my next question, but I could be wrong.
If advances in medical technology allowed gay couples to create their genetic offspring, would this make you feel more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage?
Edited by Tusko, : I clarified the fact that I was talking about gay couples
Edited by Tusko, : Correcting some grammatical badness

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 05-26-2006 7:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:25 PM Tusko has not replied
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:28 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 110 (315687)
05-27-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tusko
05-27-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
If advances in medical technology allowed gay couples to create their genetic offspring, would this make you feel more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tusko, posted 05-27-2006 10:12 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nwr, posted 05-27-2006 10:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 76 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 110 (315688)
05-27-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tusko
05-27-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
You think that even a relationship between two infertile heterosexuals is in the spirit of marriage because if they were both fertile then children might result. As medical technology becomes more advanced, we see this increasingly.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tusko, posted 05-27-2006 10:12 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 110 (315689)
05-27-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
05-27-2006 9:25 AM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
Please explain how they are special rights.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 05-27-2006 9:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by DrJones*, posted 05-27-2006 10:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 79 by nator, posted 04-15-2003 11:49 PM Faith has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 68 of 110 (315690)
05-27-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:34 PM


Re: and please, Faith, respond to this
saner voices trying to bring some reason into the situation.
"Saner voices" protested agaisnt giving women the right to vote and protested in favor of slavery, thankfully those "saner voices" were ovrriden by people who recognized basic human rights.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 69 of 110 (315692)
05-27-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
Children need both sexes for parents.
Tell that to our Government. It is sending parents off to military duty in Iraq.
Would you propose that those in the military be forbidden to marry? Would you propose that married people not be recruits?
The arguments you have been using in this thread come across as irrational.
Edited by nwr, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:53 PM nwr has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 70 of 110 (315693)
05-27-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
05-23-2006 8:42 PM


Re: OK I'll bite
quote:
I also don't see how you got most of those things off that NPR interview.
Using the total broadcast time of 38:54, the following may be found at -
US military conquest of the world
16:36 - From Grant of the Dominion Movement - "Christians have the obligation ... to establish dominion over the world." Also the repeated refrain "it is dominion we are after" The "we" clearly meaning US members of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement.
Glad to see you reject this proposition.
Infiltration of US government for subversive purposes
The Generation Joshua group mentioned at 7:25 is designed to infiltrate the US government, the word was even used in the context of that group. One purpose of this group and the Christian Reconstructionists in general (18:40) is to strip the ability of the court system to rule on the establishment clause via the Constiution Restoration Act which was passed by the House and is endorsed by the Republican Party Platform. The passage of this act would subvert the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution.
Elimination of Public Education
There is no clear call to eliminate public education in the broadcast but rather clear calls for rejection (5:45). I put this one up to see the reaction as at least one poster to this forum (not you) who has called for the extermination of public education in the US.
Execution of certian groups according to Biblical Law (as they interpret)
The Christian Reconstruction Movement call for the replacement of civil law with "Biblical Law" part of which means the execution of homosexuals, aduterers, and all women who engage in premarital sex was specifically and unequivocally stated at 12:45 and 31:00.
Support of Racism
Acually, in speaking of the Christian Right (21:00), the statement in the broadcast was that, unlike the past, bigotry against Blacks, Jews and Catholics was now taboo but that as a movement needing an enemy, the new enemy is homosexuals. The reason I put this one up is because my research indicates that while support of such bigotry, while taboo for the leadership, still appears common among the followers. Will elaborate in next post on this thread.
Psycological support of Authoritarianism
Not specifically mentioned but according to the common definition, such support is all over this broadcast. Because it is clear I must define authoritarianism before examining this issue further, I will include such discussion in my next post.
Elimination of Freedom of Religion
At 3:40 in the broadcast they clearly state the Christian Reconstructionist Movement wants to make Christianity "dominant and privileged" in relation to other religions. IMHO such a position would be similar to the idea freedom of religion in China and some Islamic nations, which runs from discouragement to elimination. IMHO, my religion would be illegal under Christian Reconstructionists.
Institutionalized bias against homosexuality
Execution of homosexuals would be an obvious indicator of instiutional bias IMHO. The bradcast also spent some time on the strategy whipping up fears of homosexuals as a group being a threat to Christianity (22:00 on). In most historical cases of genocide, the authorities first seek to demonize the target. It is an understatement on my part to say I am not comfortable with what I am hearing here.
Control over all scholarship, so that research and conclusions must be approved by religious bodies
In the broadcast at 1:25 to 3:14, an example was the CDC panel on abstinence education where the panel's conclusion was unanimously rendered that abstinence education was a failure. The panel was then accused of bias by some politician who used the unanimous opinion as evidence of bias. His solution was to pack the panel with non-scientist religious figures in order to come up with a conclusion he and his Christian Reconstructionist supporters would agree with. This is not the only case of such interference in science under the current administration.
I find it interesting we can listen to the same broadcast and not quite hear the same thing. {ABE} Anyway, thanks for responding.
Edited by anglagard, : speling, and last sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 05-23-2006 8:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 11:19 PM anglagard has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 110 (315694)
05-27-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by nwr
05-27-2006 10:43 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
Children need both sexes for parents.
========
Tell that to our Government. It is sending parents off to military duty in Iraq.
Yes, quite crazy. It's already crazy though to send women into combat at all, and in fact to send them anywhere at all when they have children at home. This is due more to feminism than anything else. Just another sign of the increasing irrationality of our culture.
Would you propose that those in the military be forbidden to marry? Would you propose that married people not be recruits?
I would propose that women not be in the military in any combat arenas at all, and that they not be in the military at all if they have children.
The arguments you have been using in this thread come across as irrational.
The feeling is mutual I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by nwr, posted 05-27-2006 10:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 05-27-2006 10:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 7:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 72 of 110 (315695)
05-27-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
05-27-2006 10:53 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
The context was your statement:
Children need both sexes for parents.
In that context, I raised a question about the military:
Would you propose that those in the military be forbidden to marry? Would you propose that married people not be recruits?
I would propose that women not be in the military in any combat arenas at all, and that they not be in the military at all if they have children.
You completely evaded the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 11:39 PM nwr has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 110 (315698)
05-27-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by anglagard
05-27-2006 10:44 PM


Paranoia & the NPR interview
I also don't see how you got most of those things off that NPR interview.
=================
Using the total broadcast time of 38:54, the following may be found at -
US military conquest of the world
16:36 - From Grant of the Dominion Movement - "Christians have the obligation ... to establish dominion over the world." Also the repeated refrain "it is dominion we are after" The "we" clearly meaning US members of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement.
Unless you didn't quote the essential portion, there is no mention of military conquest, and no Christian, even the Reconstructionists, would advocate violence as a means to dominion that I know of.
Glad to see you reject this proposition.
Reconstructionism is a very small group.
Infiltration of US government for subversive purposes
The Generation Joshua group mentioned at 7:25 is designed to infiltrate the US government, the word was even used in the context of that group.
This means that they are training people for government work. There is no strongly politically minded group that doesn't do that. There is nothing outside the functioning of normal democracy in that idea. Yes, it is possible for an alien mentality to have influence in the government by such means. I believe many have already done so, leftists and Communists for instance, people who have already subverted the Constitution to an alien ideology in many respects from their positions of power in the government.
One purpose of this group and the Christian Reconstructionists in general (18:40) is to strip the ability of the court system to rule on the establishment clause via the Constiution Restoration Act which was passed by the House and is endorsed by the Republican Party Platform. The passage of this act would subvert the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution.
I shall have to make a point of listening back to that, but as you present it I see nothing in this other than an opinion with which you disagree. Conservatives in general believe that the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution has been subverted by liberals for decades, who have no appreciation of the true meaning of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote of how the judicial branch was not sufficiently checked and could end up making law instead of Congress. We believe this has been happening. I may agree with the Reconstructionists on this point.
Execution of certian groups according to Biblical Law (as they interpret)
The Christian Reconstruction Movement call for the replacement of civil law with "Biblical Law" part of which means the execution of homosexuals, aduterers, and all women who engage in premarital sex was specifically and unequivically stated at 12:45 and 31:00.
Nothing in the interview suggests they take it this far. That I believe is your own wild interpretation of what rule by Biblical law would mean.
Support of Racism
Acually, in speaking of the Christian Right (21:00), the statement in the broadcast was that, unlike the past, bigotry against Blacks, Jews and Catholics was now taboo but that as a movement needing an enemy, the new enemy is homosexuals. The reason I put this one up is because my research indicates that while support of such bigotry, while taboo for the leadership, still appears common among the followers. Will elaborate in next post on this thread.
Racism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is endemic to the human race however. And if any philosophy did anything to justify racism, that is evolutionism, as clearly all creatures evolve into various types, varieties and races -- called "species" these days. Nazism for instance used evolutionist language to justify their extermination of Jews and Slavs. The Bible on the other hand says we're all made in the image of God and all descended from one couple.
Also, that term "bigotry" is highly tendentious and to use it makes you subject to it yourself. Theological differences with Jews and Catholics are very strong, and some people ridiculously call that "bigotry."
Psycological support of Authoritarianism
Not specifically mentioned but according to the common definition, such support is all over this broadcast. Because it is clear I must define authoritarianism before examining this issue further, I will include such discussion in my next post.
Elimination of Freedom of Religion
At 3:40 in the broadcast they clearly state the Christian Reconstructionist Movement wants to make Christianity "dominant and privledged" in relation to other religions. IMHO such a position would be similar to the idea freedom of religion in China and some Islamic nations, which runs from discouragement to elimination. IMHO, my religion would be illegal under Christian Reconstructionists.
I haven't studied their views enough to know whether you are right about his. Having Christianity as the dominant religion does not to my mind imply any suppression of freedom of other religions. But it is just feverish paranoia that would compare domination by Christianity to Islam with its call to murder the infidel, and to Communism -- whether in Russia or China or North Korea -- which regularly imprisons and executes religious people -- mostly Christians -- as "enemies of the state."
Institutionalized bias against homosexuality
Execution of homosexuals would be an obvious indicator of instiutional bias IMHO.
Not one word was said about executing anybody. You are making this up.
The bradcast also spent some time on the strategy whipping up fears of homosexuals as a group being a threat to Christianity (22:00 on).
I heard nothing of the sort, of whipping anything up. You have a paranoid imagination. There is such a thing as the Homosexual Agenda, if that's what was mentioned. It is quite real, but it is to be defeated if possible by democratic means.
In most historical cases of genocide, the authorities first seek to demonize the target. It is an understatement on my part to say I am not comfortable with what I am hearing here.
Well, hey, the most demonized group in the country these days is Christians. Think about it.
Control over all scholarship, so that research and conclusions must be approved by religious bodies
In the broadcast at 1:25 to 3:14, an example was the CDC panel on abstinence education where the panel's conclusion was unanimously rendered that abstinence education was a failure. The panel was then accused of bias by some politician who used the unanimous opinion as evidence of bias. His solution was to pack the panel with non-scientist religious figures in order to come up with a conclusion he and his Christian Reconstructionist supporters would agree with. This is not the only case of such interference in science under the current administration.
I find it interesting we can listen to the same broadcast and not hear the same thing.
Scary as a matter of fact. Your paranoia is VERY scary.
Edit: Actually I found the interview paranoid and scary too, but you seem to have read between the lines and drawn even stranger implications out of nowhere.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by anglagard, posted 05-27-2006 10:44 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 05-28-2006 12:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 110 (315701)
05-27-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
05-27-2006 10:58 PM


Re: Leaving hatred aside...
The context was your statement:
Children need both sexes for parents.
In that context, I raised a question about the military:
Would you propose that those in the military be forbidden to marry? Would you propose that married people not be recruits?
I would propose that women not be in the military in any combat arenas at all, and that they not be in the military at all if they have children.
You completely evaded the issue.
Oh sorry, I completely misconstrued your statement. Perhaps I still don't understand it, as it seems completely unrelated to what I said. However, I suppose you are confusing "having both sexes for parents" with "having both parents always PRESENT." Having both sexes for parents doesn't mean both have to be present. It's a matter of the child's KNOWING he has both sexes for parents, with the ability to identify with his/her own sex, and can grow up understanding and appreciating the difference. This happens even if one parent is unfortunately absent, though the more interaction the better of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 05-27-2006 10:58 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-28-2006 1:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 81 by nator, posted 05-28-2006 8:03 AM Faith has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 75 of 110 (315704)
05-28-2006 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
05-27-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Paranoia & the NPR interview
Not one word was said about executing anybody. You are making this up.
Exact words starting at 12:32 -
"Christian Reconstrucionism is probably the most extreme form of Christian Fundamentalism ..um..it presribes something very much like the Christian Taliban, it calls for the imposition of Leviticus, the execution of homosexuals, the execution of adulterers, the execution of women who are unchaste before marriage."
Exact words starting at 30:46 -
"...people who are kind of unabashed theocrats, people who are Christian Reconstructionists who adhere to an ideology that proposes replacing civil law with Biblical law you know that would execute people for you know vast numbers of moral crimes that is ...very... it's openly theocratic"
While I may be able to understand not hearing the same emphasis in an interview due to preconcieved notions, to deny the existance of something stated so clearly in the interview is flat out a denial of reality.
However, I am willing to test my ability to hear this interview against yours, Faith. I would like to see if anyone else hears what I heard so anyone else please feel free to post on this exact issue of perception of reality, if you have the time or desire.
For your convenience here is a link to the interview:
New Book Examines Christian Nationalism : NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 05-27-2006 11:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-28-2006 2:52 AM anglagard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024