It's disengenous to pretend just Christians or some other group are the only ones pushing for it.
Who's pretending that? No one in this thread. Although we do have a couple of people pretending that, as regards Christians specifically, it's fake news, doesn't exist. So you are directing your criticism in the exact wrong direction.
I'll change my direction of criticism when leftists also start referring to people on the left like Illhan Omar as "Brown Muslim Anti-Nationalists". It would be equally as dumb as calling Pete Hegseth a "White Christian Nationalist", but at least they would then be consistent.
Huh? I don't think you've understood a single word that I've said. Here's a hint. The term "Christian Nationalist" is not a synonym for "Christian and Nationalist." The word "Christian" doesn't refer to the religion of the person in question. It refers to the particular type of Nationalism being espoused.
"Brown Muslim Anti-Nationalist" is a nonsense jumble of words.
That's one of my favorite that they've done.You can be religious and realize that for a government of different minded people to work, you want government separate from religion.
As an aside, I just recently listened to the RIH series on Martin Luther. I thought Holland's remarks about secularism being the intellectual descendent of the Reformation were quite thought-provoking.
If you've never listened to Hardcore History, go find the one on Munster during the Reformation--Prophets of Doom. Incredible.
I will check it out.
Interesting. In a nutshell, what’s his argument?
Christian origins of the secular/religious divide — Holland points out that the very category of "the secular" (as neutral space distinct from "religion") is itself a Christian innovation. Jesus' words about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's (Matthew 22:21) already hinted at a separation. Medieval developments (like the Investiture Controversy) and papal reform movements chipped away at total sacralized authority. But the Reformation radicalized this by rejecting the Catholic Church's claim to overarching worldly-spiritual unity, pushing toward a world where religion could be "privatized" while the secular realm handled civil affairs. Atheism, secular liberalism, and even critiques of Christianity often operate within this Christian-shaped framework—they assume a "neutral" secular space that other cultures (e.g., pre-Christian paganism or many non-Western traditions) simply don't conceptualize the same way.
@co-hoosier Sorry I was very slow in figuring out what you were referring to, but yes, what Brad said directly above. In fact, Brad may even be softening it just a bit. I think Holland went so far as to strongly suggest that things like secularism and atheism were the inevitable long-term consequences of the Reformation because of the way this concept of a separation between the civic and religious spheres of life took such a central role in modern Western modes of thinking.
I think this might be a free link to it:That's one of my favorite that they've done.You can be religious and realize that for a government of different minded people to work, you want government separate from religion.
As an aside, I just recently listened to the RIH series on Martin Luther. I thought Holland's remarks about secularism being the intellectual descendent of the Reformation were quite thought-provoking.
If you've never listened to Hardcore History, go find the one on Munster during the Reformation--Prophets of Doom. Incredible.
I will check it out.
https://harkaudio.com/p/henry-josephson
I think your first sentence is what goat and I are pushing back on. The reason America is different (and better) than Iran isn't just because Christianity and not Islam is more prominent here; it's also because we have (classical) liberal values that separate church and state.You can be religious and realize that for a government of different minded people to work, you want government separate from religion.You know damn well what Christian nationalism is
I don't know what it is anymore. I used to think I knew, but it seems the popular definition is continually expanding.
Common and consistent definition:
Christian nationalism is a form of religious nationalism that focuses on promoting the Christian views of its followers in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political, cultural, and social life.
Why would any Christian not want Christianity to be prominent in their political, cultural, and social life?
Also, why wouldn't any human want their views to be prominent in their political, cultural, and social life, whether they're an atheist, Buddhist, or Muslim?
Once again, you guys are saying nothing.
I'm not advocating for a theocracy and believe them to be unchristian . The point I am making is all people want their views to be prominent in culture, politics, and etc. For example do you want your views on homosexuality to be prominent? Of course you do. It's disengenous to pretend just Christians or some other group are the only ones pushing for it. There is no neutral.
As for your point, I get what you're saying, but there are limits. For example, I really don't care if everyone in the nation becomes an atheist. I just don't want the govt forcing or endorsing any religious beliefs or any religion. Does that mean all non-freaks need to treat Satanism or Wickens respectfully? No. But it does mean you can't use government to treat it differently than Christianity.
I already stated I don't want a Theocracy and am for the separation of the State from Christianity. Not sure how we disagree on that part. The disagreement is this notion that everyone isn't trying to influence each other and Christians are somehow unique in that regard.
The US is fighting Israel's war, one they've wanted for decades. My god, Trump is Netanyahu's bitch.
The US is fighting Israel's war, one they've wanted for decades. My god, Trump is Netanyahu's bitch.
This bill was long overdue.
As much as you whine on the basketball board and now here….you must be an English teacher
Knesset approved!
I think there's some truth to the idea that for decades Israel has been looking for a partner to do the heavy lifting in helping them take out Iran.
Reagan wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
GHWB wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
Clinton wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
GWB wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
Obama wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
Trump in his first term wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
Biden wasn't stupid enough to do it for them.
But now they've finally found their puppet.
Put another way, Presidents since Reagan have been saying that under no circumstances should Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and Trump is the first to put real teeth to the idea.
Yet Trump blasted other Presidents for getting America into wars. Trump promised America First and getting us out of wars in his campaign.
A liar and a hypocrite but par for the course for him.
Maybe he should have kept the agreement with Iran that Obama had orchestrated. But he was more worried about destroying anything seen as an accomplishment by his predecessor like a jealous kindergartner
Whining = English teacher? I don't see the logic, but okay.The US is fighting Israel's war, one they've wanted for decades. My god, Trump is Netanyahu's bitch.
This bill was long overdue.
As much as you whine on the basketball board and now here….you must be an English teacher
Btw, there's a big difference between whining and calling a spade a spade. I'd be happy to continue this discussion once grow a brain.
Good day.
I'd be happy to continue this discussion once grow a brain.The US is fighting Israel's war, one they've wanted for decades. My god, Trump is Netanyahu's bitch.
This bill was long overdue.
As much as you whine on the basketball board and now here….you must be an English teacher
Good day.
Definitely not an English teacher.
@carramrod You can debate the legitimacy of the "brain" statement if wish, but that sentence is structurally sound. Tough crowd.
And you're correct; I'm not an English "teacher." Maybe a professor and soon-to-be published author, but not a teacher; that label is reserved someone without a PhD.
I don't think i've seen a bigger piece of red meat lobbed into this forum in a while. Good Luck @gthomas@carramrod You can debate the legitimacy of the "brain" statement if wish, but that sentence is structurally sound. Tough crowd.
And you're correct; I'm not an English "teacher." Maybe a professor and soon-to-be published author, but not a teacher; that label is reserved someone without a PhD.
Godspeed.
It's very "shooter-ish".I don't think i've seen a bigger piece of red meat lobbed into this forum in a while. Good Luck @gthomas@carramrod You can debate the legitimacy of the "brain" statement if wish, but that sentence is structurally sound. Tough crowd.
And you're correct; I'm not an English "teacher." Maybe a professor and soon-to-be published author, but not a teacher; that label is reserved someone without a PhD.
Godspeed.
.
Maybe he should have kept the agreement with Iran that Obama had orchestrated.
Agreement? Obama went tits up with the Mullahs and said he reached an “agreement”. He was desperate.