christian nationalism

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. 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 feeling is mutual I'm sure.

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. Reconstructionism is a very small 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. 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. 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. 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." 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." Not one word was said about executing anybody. You are making this up. 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. Well, hey, the most demonized group in the country these days is Christians. Think about it. 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.

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.

Well, I remembered thinking the interview was paranoid, I just forgot various things that were said.I'll take your word for it that that's what she said. I don't have time to listen to it right now.Next what's needed is to check with the Reconstructionists themselves to be sure that's their position, as I'm not familiar with it otherwise.I don't see how anyone can think of establishing a theocracy of that sort in today's world, but I guess they do believe that the world is supposed to become Christian eventually. I think it's quite clear that this world is never going to be Christian, and that there's no such idea in the Bible.In any case they don't represent the majority of Christians.

See, to me, a special right is a right you have no right to.

I don't believe in research *, much the less so after hanging around EvC for many months.It's common sense that children need a male and female parent, and I'm SO sorry if you lack the common sense to see it but that's the way it is.And I already said that under some circumstances gays make fine parents, better than some heteros. That is the only consideration, that there be no adequate male-female parenting possibility, and then single parent or gays may be better than the alternatives. But the ideal is a father and a mother.And again, it's common sense. A person with common sense doesn't need research to prove it.=========================================================
* My usual unfortunate tendency to hyperbole there. Let me clarify. I think most social research is useless. Its value is completely dependent on the ability of the researchers to conceptualize the situation they want to research, and that is a huge area in which I don't trust your average scientist type. Also, research can prove just about anything you want it to if you define your terms carefully enough. And again, this conviction has only deepened since I started hanging out here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : asterisk and footnote

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you should do the research, I thought I might eventually get around to it, but thanks for doing it. I'll have to spend some more time on it later.All I'd say right now is that it makes no sense to think of applying God's Law fully in a pluralistic society. For one thing, ancient Israel was a covenanted society, that is they made a covenant with God to be governed by His Law. Seems to me that ought to be possible now, so that if some group wants to make such a covenant, why not, but without that consent of the governed it's neither a good idea nor possible. Maybe they cover this somewhere in their writings but I haven't read that far yet.The second thing is, again, that a Christian's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth, and we should expect to be part of all kinds of pagan and nonChristian cultures while here. Certainly most Christians throughout the world live in alien cultures.In the West it just so developed that Christians had a large part in contributing to government. But even so, that's not the same as being called to found a theocracy -- or theonomy. As they point out, early New England America did base much of their laws on the Old Testament, but then they were more of a cohesive, even covenanted society, founded originally BY Christians. But subsequent generations lost their belief and the laws can no longer be enforced in that case.Christians ARE called to be "salt" among the nonbelievers, which is usually understood in the sense that salt is used as a preservative against corruption. So the right role for Christians IS to fight against such things as the legalization of abortion and gay marriage, because those things oppose God, and can only bring about the deterioration and ultimate destruction of the society. But the methods that are to be used are the usual political channels of a democracy, and if those fail, well the society WILL ultimately self-destruct but we did our part.Is there anything in your links you particularly want me to address?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another way to put it is that a special right is one you demand although you are not qualified for it. Nothing circular at all. If it's not a right you have a right to, that means it's a right you aren't qualified for. Children and animals and close relations don't qualify for marriage. Neither do homosexuals.

As I said, I'm in favor of gays adopting as last resort, when no Mom and Dad arrangements are possible and the gays are a good bet. Marriage is not permissible no matter what. To my mind a child can be brought up very well by a couple of aunts or a couple of uncles. I think of it that way. That's pretty much what I said. My super duper reality detector tells me so. You threw in the word "one" which seems to imply something that changes the subject, and where are you getting your information anyway? They need both sexes, that's what I've said. I totally disagree. My super duper reality detector tells me you are wrong. Yes, all research is bogus and suspect -- and meaningless. "Religious faith" is a completely meaningless category in such a context. Its definition by a researcher is very likely to be all wrong. And recovering from surgery fast isn't of any real importance that I can see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.