Mothra said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Fair enough. I disdain Trump personally and quite frankly, am probably not far off from you in that regard. But I would submit that the appropriate course of action for anyone with any semblance of a conservative mindset is to vote on policy instead of personality. That is the only logical recourse when you have two candidates who are as diametrically opposed on the issues, and both are pretty despicable in their personal lives.

That is why I try to talk sense to my conservative friends who have pledged to support Kamala because of their disdain for Trump. They're cutting off their noses to spit their faces.

---

sorry, not a single "conservative" person who pledged to vote for Harris is thinking straight or a conservative.. period

Dont like Trump, sit out the election. Actively voting for all the policies you claim to be against is insanity..

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Throughout US history there have been many flawed presidents.

LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Joe Biden, JFK, Grant and Trump all come to mind.

And several noble presidents such as Jimmy Carter , Washington, Monroe, Polk, and Taft.

But all that effects you, me and our country is their POLICIES.

And Harris's policies are no different than Biden's. So if you wish for continued inflation, millions of illegals flooding into our country , fentanyl continuing to kill over 100,000 Americans annually and a host of woke agendas …..

By all means vote for Harris. Although I sincerely see zero evidence of any ethical or moral superiority in the gal.

---

One of the unsung great hero Presidents of all time.

And modern liberal America pays him back by ignoring him or tearing his name off high schools....

https://edsource.org/updates/fresno-school-district-removes-name-of-former-president-polk-from-school

James K. Polk is not known to many people today but he was one of America's most effective presidents. He promised to serve one term, accomplished all his major goals, and left office having hugely expanded the United States. pic.twitter.com/M2RT3ZGVOu

— Dr. Clayton Forrester (@DrClaytonForre1) August 17, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Throughout US history there have been many flawed presidents.

LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Joe Biden, JFK, Grant and Trump all come to mind.

And several noble presidents such as Jimmy Carter , Washington, Monroe, Polk, and Taft.

But all that effects you, me and our country is their POLICIES.

And Harris's policies are no different than Biden's. So if you wish for continued inflation, millions of illegals flooding into our country , fentanyl continuing to kill over 100,000 Americans annually and a host of woke agendas …..

By all means vote for Harris. Although I sincerely see zero evidence of any ethical or moral superiority in the gal.

---

One of the unsung great hero Presidents of all time.

And modern liberal America pays him back by ignoring him or tearing his name off high schools....

https://edsource.org/updates/fresno-school-district-removes-name-of-former-president-polk-from-school

---

Totally 100% agree


Polk accomplished more than any one term president in US history.

Have never understood why he doesn't get better press.

Can only guess it was because he was a southerner.




Believe it or not I named a street after Polk in the first subdivision my partnership ever developed.

Of course I named the main street after Reagan !

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Throughout US history there have been many flawed presidents.

LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Joe Biden, JFK, Grant and Trump all come to mind.

And several noble presidents such as Jimmy Carter , Washington, Monroe, Polk, and Taft.

But all that effects you, me and our country is their POLICIES.

And Harris's policies are no different than Biden's. So if you wish for continued inflation, millions of illegals flooding into our country , fentanyl continuing to kill over 100,000 Americans annually and a host of woke agendas …..

By all means vote for Harris. Although I sincerely see zero evidence of any ethical or moral superiority in the gal.

---

One of the unsung great hero Presidents of all time.

And modern liberal America pays him back by ignoring him or tearing his name off high schools....

https://edsource.org/updates/fresno-school-district-removes-name-of-former-president-polk-from-school

---

Totally 100% agree


Polk accomplished more than any one term president in US history.

Have never understood why he doesn't get better press.

Can only guess it was because he was a southerner.




Believe it or not I named a street after Polk in the first subdivision my partnership ever developed.

Of course I named the main street after Reagan !

---

He made war against a non-approved Liberal enemy.

He took land and fought brown people....not a good look by modern progressive standards.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Throughout US history there have been many flawed presidents.

LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Joe Biden, JFK, Grant and Trump all come to mind.

And several noble presidents such as Jimmy Carter , Washington, Monroe, Polk, and Taft.

But all that effects you, me and our country is their POLICIES.

And Harris's policies are no different than Biden's. So if you wish for continued inflation, millions of illegals flooding into our country , fentanyl continuing to kill over 100,000 Americans annually and a host of woke agendas …..

By all means vote for Harris. Although I sincerely see zero evidence of any ethical or moral superiority in the gal.

---

One of the unsung great hero Presidents of all time.

And modern liberal America pays him back by ignoring him or tearing his name off high schools....

https://edsource.org/updates/fresno-school-district-removes-name-of-former-president-polk-from-school

---

Totally 100% agree


Polk accomplished more than any one term president in US history.

Have never understood why he doesn't get better press.

Can only guess it was because he was a southerner.




Believe it or not I named a street after Polk in the first subdivision my partnership ever developed.

Of course I named the main street after Reagan !

---

He made war against a non-approved Liberal enemy.

He took land and fought brown people....not a good look by modern progressive standards.

---

Before the Mexican - American war began many European military advisors thought Mexico would win easily.

Strange how many US historians belittle possibly our greatest feat of military prowess.

Especially as our troops were almost always heavily outnumbered.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't deny that I don't like Trump; however my "emotions " are based on learning about him, listening to him, watching him and reading about him since about 2010. Therefore I don't agree that I am illogical.
Likewise, you have multiple posts that are articulate and, at times presented in a manner that causes me to think and even shift my thinking a bit.
We are not going to change stances on Trump; however, on other issues it has.

---

Throughout US history there have been many flawed presidents.

LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Joe Biden, JFK, Grant and Trump all come to mind.

And several noble presidents such as Jimmy Carter , Washington, Monroe, Polk, and Taft.

But all that effects you, me and our country is their POLICIES.

And Harris's policies are no different than Biden's. So if you wish for continued inflation, millions of illegals flooding into our country , fentanyl continuing to kill over 100,000 Americans annually and a host of woke agendas …..

By all means vote for Harris. Although I sincerely see zero evidence of any ethical or moral superiority in the gal.

---

One of the unsung great hero Presidents of all time.

And modern liberal America pays him back by ignoring him or tearing his name off high schools....

https://edsource.org/updates/fresno-school-district-removes-name-of-former-president-polk-from-school

---

Totally 100% agree


Polk accomplished more than any one term president in US history.

Have never understood why he doesn't get better press.

Can only guess it was because he was a southerner.




Believe it or not I named a street after Polk in the first subdivision my partnership ever developed.

Of course I named the main street after Reagan !

---

He made war against a non-approved Liberal enemy.

He took land and fought brown people....not a good look by modern progressive standards.

---

Before the Mexican - American war began many European military advisors thought Mexico would win easily.

Strange how many US historians belittle possibly our greatest feat of military prowess.

Especially as our troops were almost always heavily outnumbered.

---

Its a politically incorrect and inconvenient victory

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

You and W47 inventing your own bogeyman because of your TDS. Your input in this thread has been a clown show of "the sky is falling".

Like what's it feel like knowing that you have TDS while also knowing that your arguments are just silly and baseless, while also knowing that you can't help yourself, you're compelled to misdirect because of your TDS? The endless loop of TDS hysterics, lies, compelled action, back to hysterics. The cycle never ends. Seems like you'd eventually figure out that you need to deprogram yourself.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

You and W47 inventing your own bogeyman because of your TDS. Your input in this thread has been a clown show of "the sky is falling".

Like what's it feel like knowing that you have TDS while also knowing that your arguments are just silly and baseless, while also knowing that you can't help yourself, you're compelled to misdirect because of your TDS? The endless loop of TDS hysterics, lies, compelled action, back to hysterics. The cycle never ends. Seems like you'd eventually figure out that you need to deprogram yourself.

---

I don't think I've even expressed an opinion, except that Christian nationalism does exist. You're the one going hysterical about it. 47 asked whether anyone's church tended that way, and the response has been loud and clear: we don't know and we don't want to know.

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

We're not arguing because you present only hysterics. You have provided zero actual evidence. You bought a narrative from the media that you just can't reasonably back up, so now you try to nuance your way into a slightly different "reasonable" position that sounds plausible to you. You think putting a word like "partly" in front of "responsibile" makes your argument reasonable. It doesn't. You're selling garbage and you're pretending it's a main course.

You're broken, TDS has severed your logic. Nuance isn't getting you out of owning your falsehoods.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

Whatever mask-boy.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

You and W47 inventing your own bogeyman because of your TDS. Your input in this thread has been a clown show of "the sky is falling".

Like what's it feel like knowing that you have TDS while also knowing that your arguments are just silly and baseless, while also knowing that you can't help yourself, you're compelled to misdirect because of your TDS? The endless loop of TDS hysterics, lies, compelled action, back to hysterics. The cycle never ends. Seems like you'd eventually figure out that you need to deprogram yourself.

---

I don't think I've even expressed an opinion, except that Christian nationalism does exist.

---

If I remember correctly, you are Catholic.

Is there rampant 'Christian Nationalism' exhibited where you regularly attend Mass ?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

How's the water in your end of the bat**** crazy spectrum?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

This thread is the paragon of what the Democrats continue to do and Republicans continue to fall into the same trap. The Democrats continue to make up straw men bogeymen and argue against that, and Republicans continue to acknowledge it.

There is no "Christian Nationalism."
There is no "THREAT TO DEMOCRACY."
There are no women dying of "back alley abortions."
There are no "losing our rights" (unless you believe in free speech)
There is not "Project 2025" (not in the way they describe it)

---

Yep, some on here are actually asking the libs genuine questions as if they will answer. Even Sam tried to create a NEW unsubstantiated bogeyman. They won't answer because it's just nonsense, the hysterics are exactly that.

---

If you had genuine questions, you could google them. I'm just waiting for y'all to catch up so we can discuss.

---

Whatever mask-boy.

---

Pin-cushion might be more apropos.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

2nd try

Seem to recall you declaring you're Catholic.

If so do you see CN where you regularly attend Mass ?

If so in what form ?

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

2nd try

Seem to recall you declaring you're Catholic.

If so do you see CN where you regularly attend Mass ?

If so in what form ?

---

No, I don't see it.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

---

Metaxas and Flynn are well known and respected among evangelicals. Flynn even served as an advisor to President Trump. They and others played a key role in creating the mythology behind the J6 insurrection. I admire Metaxas in many ways (he's a friend of a friend). I was shocked by some of the things he said. But no one can deny that he's a prominent figure.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

You need to start thinking about who has power and money and fit that into your equation.

Realistically there's no threat of Christian nationalism because its the boogeyman of most media, there's no real money behind it and where it exists its astronomically small.

However, the radical left has billions of dollars behind it through DEI, most universities along with media and entertainment are deeply cultured for the advancement of radical leftism. Younger generations overwhelmingly support it, so when boomers die out it will be imbedded in everything.

Its more the case where being a Christian in the future might get you cancelled from society. If you're a Christian you should know this is coming.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

---

Metaxas and Flynn are well known and respected among evangelicals. Flynn even served as an advisor to President Trump. They and others played a key role in creating the mythology behind the J6 insurrection. I admire Metaxas in many ways (he's a friend of a friend). I was shocked by some of the things he said. But no one can deny that he's a prominent figure.

---

I'd never heard of Metaxas until your post.

Nobody knew how extreme Flynn was until after he served.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

You need to start thinking about who has power and money and fit that into your equation.

Realistically there's no threat of Christian nationalism because its the boogeyman of most media, there's no real money behind it and where it exists its astronomically small.

However, the radical left has billions of dollars behind it through DEI, most universities along with media and entertainment are deeply cultured for the advancement of radical leftism. Younger generations overwhelmingly support it, so when boomers die out it will be imbedded in everything.

It's more the case where being a Christian in the future might get you cancelled from society. If you're a Christian you should know this is coming.

---

This is similar to the woke argument that only whites can be racist because they have the money and the power. I'm well aware of the anti-Christian bigotry on the left. It doesn't change the fact that dangerous ideas also exist and have increasing influence on the right.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

---

Metaxas and Flynn are well known and respected among evangelicals. Flynn even served as an advisor to President Trump. They and others played a key role in creating the mythology behind the J6 insurrection. I admire Metaxas in many ways (he's a friend of a friend). I was shocked by some of the things he said. But no one can deny that he's a prominent figure.

---

I'd never heard of Metaxas until your post.

Nobody knew how extreme Flynn was until after he served.

---

Indeed, and it's not as if evangelicals denounced Flynn when he revealed his extremism. On the contrary it's part of what propelled him to rock star status.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

---

Metaxas and Flynn are well known and respected among evangelicals. Flynn even served as an advisor to President Trump. They and others played a key role in creating the mythology behind the J6 insurrection. I admire Metaxas in many ways (he's a friend of a friend). I was shocked by some of the things he said. But no one can deny that he's a prominent figure.

---

I'd never heard of Metaxas until your post.

Nobody knew how extreme Flynn was until after he served.

---

Indeed, and it's not as if evangelicals denounced Flynn when he revealed his extremism. On the contrary it's part of what propelled him to rock star status.

---

Is he really a rock star? I mean, a lot folks thought he got screwed by the FBI. But is he influential? And, if he is, is it b/c he's a Trump supporter who was wrongly indicted? Or is it his extremist views? I say the former, even assuming he has a significant following.

I really believe you're talking a very small % of conservative Christians. And again, call them what you want, but don't pretend that's your typical Republican Christian.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

Yeah, that is nutty.

But, I've been a conservative and evangelical most of my life (I'm 55) and had never heard of the Jericho March until this post. I just tried researching it but didn't find much, and it appears to have been sparsely attended.

And I've never met anyone who shares the views described in the article. Literally not one person.

So, yes, that group is nuts, and I don't care what you call them, Christian Nationalist or other. It's a fringe group. We have fringe groups of all kinds.

But the way the label is thrown around, it clearly is meant to cover far more folks than these.

---

Metaxas and Flynn are well known and respected among evangelicals. Flynn even served as an advisor to President Trump. They and others played a key role in creating the mythology behind the J6 insurrection. I admire Metaxas in many ways (he's a friend of a friend). I was shocked by some of the things he said. But no one can deny that he's a prominent figure.

---

I'd never heard of Metaxas until your post.

Nobody knew how extreme Flynn was until after he served.

---

Indeed, and it's not as if evangelicals denounced Flynn when he revealed his extremism. On the contrary it's part of what propelled him to rock star status.

---

Is he really a rock star? I mean, a lot folks thought he got screwed by the FBI. But is he influential? And, if he is, is it b/c he's a Trump supporter who was wrongly indicted? Or is it his extremist views? I say the former, even assuming he has a significant following.

I really believe you're talking a very small % of conservative Christians. And again, call them what you want, but don't pretend that's your typical Republican Christian.

---

I'm not saying it is. Your typical Democrat isn't a Marxian critical theorist, either. But like anyone else they will vote for their party and find a way to justify it. Ideas have consequences. History teaches that it's a grave mistake to ignore the influence of the passionate minority. Our own revolutionary war was supported by a minority of the colonists. The basic sentiments of a person like Metaxas, for example that evidence doesn't matter when you're on a righteous mission, are shared by many if not most on this board. Whether they share a detailed theological framework doesn't necessarily matter. When ideology resonates with people's grievances, it's more than capable of evolving and spreading even in simplified form.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

2nd try

Seem to recall you declaring you're Catholic.

If so do you see CN where you regularly attend Mass ?

If so in what form ?

---

No, I don't see it.

---

Neither do I.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Nope, the "we weren't actually saying that it's a problem" misdirect doesn't work. Trying to reinforce and give the impression that your bogeyman is influential and relevant, you know that's BS, so we're just here to remind you that you and he are full of it.

---

That's why there's no point in arguing about it. Your mind is already made up. It is true, by the way, that much of what the Left calls Christian nationalism is just part of our political tradition. It's also true that real Christian nationalism helped fuel the J6 riot, but you're not going to acknowledge that regardless of the evidence.

---

But what is your definition? And, you say "it exists." I won't argue that because just about every kind of person one could think of "exists." The question is, how prevalent do you believe it is according to your definition?

I've spent a fair amount of time googling the issue as you suggest, and I see everything from "A patriotic Christian" to "Christians who think only Christians should be in government and/or our laws should be based on the Bible."

And the reason many of us are "defensive" about it is that the characterization has become part of the left's and the media's everyday lexicon. I'm a Christian (first and foremost) and conservative (mostly) who loves the U.S. According to many, that alone means I'm a dangerous Christian Nationalist.

---

Political terms are slippery. I've been called everything from a radical leftist to a Christo-fascist. I'm neither, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In my view, Christian nationalists want to privilege Christianity over other religions (for example Mike Flynn saying that one nation implies one religion). They also tend to privilege private revelation over reason and the law (for example Eric Metaxas saying that when God gives you a vision, you don't need to know anything else).

I found the following article informative:

Quote:

---

What I Saw At The Jericho March
MAGA at prayer event a shocking display of apocalyptic faith and politics -- and religious decadence
by Rod Dreher
Dec. 12, 2020

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-i-saw-at-the-jericho-march/

---

---

2nd try

Seem to recall you declaring you're Catholic.

If so do you see CN where you regularly attend Mass ?

If so in what form ?

---

No, I don't see it.

---

Neither do I.

---

It's more of an evangelical or fundamentalist phenomenon. I can't say my church is completely immune to it, though. Catholicism has never been wedded to democracy. There is some sympathy with the anti-democratic feelings of the Protestant political right even if the theology is different.

If you call abortion a moral issue, gay marriage a moral issue, transgender a moral issue, then I guess the RCC is apolitical.

Somehow those moral issues end up as speaking points for politicians. Odd.

In other news, Walmart has a lot of mirrors on sale this week.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

If you call abortion a moral issue, gay marriage a moral issue, transgender a moral issue, then I guess the RCC is apolitical.

Somehow those moral issues end up as speaking points for politicians. Odd.

In other news, Walmart has a lot of mirrors on sale this week.

---

All churches are politically involved and always have been, whether black, white, liberal, or conservative. The question is whether religion drives politics or the other way around.