The Sickness of Christian Politics & Christian Nationalism

[jackd]

Of course the real test is coming up in the Supreme Court. The guy in Texas is just an annoying gnat.

[LFC]

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WIcked Whackjob) blends evil, ignorance, and Christianism (but I repeat myself) as he says something enormously stupid even for him.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) this week doubled down on his campaign to promote the so-called "natural immunity" that occurs after one has been infected by Covid-19.

During an interview with WCPT, Johnson said that vaccine scientists are wrong to think that they "can create something better than God."

The Wisconsin Republican recalled that he had tested positive for Covid-19 last year while being free of symptoms.

"Why would we just automatically assume that our natural immunity is going to be awful?" he ranted. "You would think the default position would be, if you've already had it, you ought to be pretty well protected. Why do we assume that the body's natural immune system isn't the marvel that it really is?"

"Why do we think that we can create something better than God in terms of combatting disease?" the senator added. "There are certain things we have to do, but we have just made so many assumptions, and it's all pointed toward everybody getting a vaccine."

[goldenvalley]

Jan 4, 2022 22:16:18 GMT LFC said:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WIcked Whackjob) blends evil, ignorance, and Christianism (but I repeat myself) as he says something enormously stupid even for him.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) this week doubled down on his campaign to promote the so-called "natural immunity" that occurs after one has been infected by Covid-19.

During an interview with WCPT, Johnson said that vaccine scientists are wrong to think that they "can create something better than God."

The Wisconsin Republican recalled that he had tested positive for Covid-19 last year while being free of symptoms.

"Why would we just automatically assume that our natural immunity is going to be awful?" he ranted. "You would think the default position would be, if you've already had it, you ought to be pretty well protected. Why do we assume that the body's natural immune system isn't the marvel that it really is?"

"Why do we think that we can create something better than God in terms of combatting disease?" the senator added. "There are certain things we have to do, but we have just made so many assumptions, and it's all pointed toward everybody getting a vaccine."

Hmmm God doesn't get enough credit from the Johnsons of the world.  God gave people the brains to figure out how to develop vaccines to combat a virus that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in the US...but he gets no credit for that.

[jackd]

Also, there's data, for those who care (as opposed to Johnson) about the relative efficacy of infection and vaccine.

[LFC]

The Christianists continue demanding government support for their brand of mythology. With a SCOTUS that is now packed with Christianists they just may get it.

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can – and can’t – fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations’ flags.

The case raises important questions about free speech at a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned about restrictions on religion. The court’s decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendment’s guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study in my work on free speech and the First Amendment.

If this gets the greenlight from right-wing SCOTUS expect the Satanic Temple to demand the same treatment in about 2 milliseconds.

[goldenvalley]

Jan 6, 2022 21:16:33 GMT LFC said:

The Christianists continue demanding government support for their brand of mythology. With a SCOTUS that is now packed with Christianists they just may get it.

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can – and can’t – fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations’ flags.

The case raises important questions about free speech at a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned about restrictions on religion. The court’s decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendment’s guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study in my work on free speech and the First Amendment.

If this gets the greenlight from right-wing SCOTUS expect the Satanic Temple to demand the same treatment in about 2 milliseconds.

Take down that third flag pole.  It was bound to be an issue at some time.  Remember fights about a nativity scene on city hall grounds across the country years ago.  It is just better to stick with US and State flags. Even the South Carolina governor (Nikki Haley) recognized that the Battle Flag of Virginia was a bad look in front of the Capitol when that evil kid shot up a church and ordered it removed.  

[LFC]

Georgia's SoS, Brad Raffensperger, has a challenger who is a ... "Christian" "pastor." Here's Brad's description:

“The person I’m running against, congressman Hice, he’s been in Congress for several years, he’s never done a single piece of election reform legislation, then he certified his own race with the same machines, those same ballots — and yet for President Trump he said you couldn’t trust that,” Raffensperger said. “That is a double-minded person, and as a pastor, he should know better.”

“So I’m going to run on integrity and I’m going to run on the truth. I don’t know what he is going to run on,” Raffensperger continued.

[jackd]

And yet, Raffensperger objects to federal voting reform legislation.

[LFC]

Jan 10, 2022 3:28:02 GMT jackd said:

And yet, Raffensperger objects to federal voting reform legislation.

And was involved in two racist voter purges. Yes, he's what passes for "reasonable" in the GOP anymore.

[goldenvalley]

Jan 10, 2022 14:42:30 GMT LFC said:

Jan 10, 2022 3:28:02 GMT jackd said:

And yet, Raffensperger objects to federal voting reform legislation.

And was involved in two racist voter purges. Yes, he's what passes for "reasonable" in the GOP anymore.

In a strange way he was principled and he didn't like Trump pressuring him. 

[LFC]

Jan 10, 2022 16:10:23 GMT goldenvalley said:

In a strange way he was principled and he didn't like Trump pressuring him. 

I call this the political equivalent of pooping in the potty. As an elected official you're SUPPOSED to stand up for the Constitution and American democracy. You don't get points for doing what you swore to do.

[LFC]

Jan 10, 2022 3:28:02 GMT jackd said:

And yet, Raffensperger objects to federal voting reform legislation.

More on Raffensperger's quiet embrace of fraud conspiracies in support of voter suppression and partisan election takeover laws.

Georgia's secretary of state Brad Raffensperger is no champion of democracy, but he plays one on TV.

The Georgia Republican has been widely celebrated for refusing to bow to Donald Trump's pressure campaign to overturn his election loss, but he pushes fearmongering conspiracy theories about voter fraud to justify GOP bills restricting ballot access, argued MSNBC columnist Ja'han Jones.

"You can hear Raffensperger trying to downplay Trump’s claims of election fraud while creating space for Georgia Republicans to continue their attacks on Democratic efforts to increase voter participation. In 2019, Georgia Republicans enacted a law restricting 'ballot harvesting' — known simply as ballot collection — that effectively barred voters from having their ballots dropped off by someone who isn’t a close family member or doesn't live in the same household," Jones wrote. "Democrats have sued over such laws across the country, noting the bipartisan strategy is particularly popular among Blacks and Indigenous people."

Raffensperger supports a constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls, which Georgia already requires, and he backs other measures aimed at boosting turnout or making voting easier.

"A frequent guest on TV news programs, Raffensperger has largely skated on the goodwill brought by his criticism of Trump, one of the most objectionable people in human history," Jones wrote. "But Georgia’s secretary of state is no ally of democracy: He’s still giving life to the conservative fearmongering that allowed Trump’s illiberal lies to fester."

[LFC]

[LFC]

They're at it again as they again fight for Christianism to get special treatment. These power hungry zealots will never be satisfied with freedom to worship. They must be allowed to take their rightful place since we're a "Christian nation."

In the late 19th century, a Sunday school leader in New York, Charles C. Overton, called for the creation of a Christian flag: a white banner with a blue field and red cross. The colors were meant to symbolize, respectively, purity, loyalty and the blood of Christ, but they also clearly mirrored those of the American flag. And when a pledge was later developed to accompany Overton's flag, it similarly entangled Christianity with patriotism, offering a Christianized version of the Pledge of Allegiance. For decades, the flag has been a fixture in conservative churches and religious schools, but many Americans saw it for the first time on Jan. 6 of last year, when rioters paraded it onto the floor of the House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about that flag, Shurtleff v. Boston. The case turns on complicated constitutional questions about the interplay of the First Amendment's clauses concerning free speech and the government establishment of religion, but it also speaks to the growing prominence of Christian nationalism — with its highly dubious claim that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, and that Christians should therefore enjoy a privileged place within it — and its demands for public accommodation. It could also, at least hypothetically, open the door for neo-Nazis and white supremacists to fly the Nazi flag, the Confederate flag or the flag of Kekistan, the imaginary right-wing nation ruled by Pepe the Frog (as seen last January at the U.S. Capitol), on public property.

In September 2017, a Christian nationalist group called Camp Constitution requested permission to hold a "Constitution Day" event at Boston City Hall to highlight the role of Christianity in America's founding. For the duration of the hour-long program, the group wanted the city to raise the Christian Flag on one of the three flagpoles on the City Hall grounds. On two of those poles, Boston always flies the U.S. flag, the Massachusetts state flag, and the military memorial POW/MIA flag. About 90 percent of the time, the third pole flies Boston's city flag, but occasionally that gets replaced to commemorate different events: the rainbow flag during LGBTQ Pride Month, or Juneteenth's starburst banner to mark the end of slavery in Texas, or other nations' flags, either to recognize a visiting foreign dignitary or to honor Boston's different ethnic groups. Between 2005 and 2017, Boston agreed to 284 applications to raise a private, non-city flag. But in 2017, the city denied Camp Constitution's request to fly Overton's.

The city's position was that doing so would imply a government endorsement of Christianity, in violation of the First Amendment. Camp Constitution founder Harold "Hal" Shurtleff argued instead that the denial violated his First Amendment right to free speech, since the city was refusing him access to a public forum of sorts — the flagpole — that had been made available to groups with other viewpoints. Shurtleff lost his lawsuit against the city in a federal district court and then an appeals court, but last June, represented by the Christian right legal organization Liberty Counsel, he successfully requested that the Supreme Court consider the case.

"It's really a free speech case, about how there are legal rules governing free speech for individuals that don't apply to government speech," said Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), which advocates against government sponsorship of religion and last week dedicated an episode of its podcast to the Shurtleff case. "The government's interest in not promoting a religion is a sort of backdrop."

The question boils down to whether whatever flies atop Boston's municipal flagpoles represents government speech from the city itself or just that of private individuals who are participating in a public forum the city has provided. If the flagpole is deemed to be government speech, Hollman said, there's no question about whether the city can be compelled to "speak" about religion — in fact it would be prohibited from doing so. But if the court rules that Boston had unwittingly "designated some kind of forum for private speech, then free speech rules would require them to let people in, regardless of their viewpoint."

Frighteningly Biden's Justice Department is on the slippery slope side. If there's one thing the Christian nationalists have proven over and over again it's that they won't be satisfied by anything other than having an exalted position in America, one where they can wield power with impunity.

The legal questions in the case have brought together some unusual bedfellows. While church-state separation advocates, led by the ecumenical National Council of Churches, warn that a government entity flying a religious flag would be widely interpreted as the endorsement of that religion — a message that Boston sees itself as a Christian city, promoting the Christian faith — both the ACLU and President Biden's Justice Department have filed briefs in support of Shurtleff. In doing so, they joined groups like Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Initiative, which charges that Boston's "exclusion of religious perspectives from the public square" is "antithetical to the Founders' conception of religion as central — not peripheral — to our national order."

[pnwguy]

No wonder Putin is threatening Ukraine. He knows Donald Reigns supreme and will allow his aggression to stand. After all, Putin hates gays too.

[LFC]

Does religion cause moral sickness or do morally sick people become religious? Or is it a cycle where each reinforces the other? Whatever the case, this man is sick.

Todd Akin Walked So This Guy Could … Do This

Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate Garrett Soldano has some truly egregious beliefs about abortion, according to an interview with right-wing podcaster April Moss earlier this month that was unearthed by a progressive publication, Heartland Signal, yesterday.

• Instead of letting survivors of rape get abortions, “how about we start inspiring women in the culture to let them understand and know how heroic they are, and how unbelievable that they are, that God put them in this moment?” Soldano suggested.

• Soldano emphasized a need to “defend the DNA” at conception because people who want abortions might end up killing the next Mother Teresa. “They don’t know,” he said. “That little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity.”

Two side notes. First, "defend DNA" at conception means no birth control pills or IUDs which prevent implantation, not conception. This is not an unusual stance for the right-wing Christianist whack-a-doodles but they rarely say it out loud. Second, from what I've read about the real Mother Teresa I'd say that she's not the best example to use.

[jackd]

Taken to its logical absurdity, it also means that men should always follow through whenever aroused.

[LFC]

Feb 1, 2022 17:14:19 GMT jackd said:

Taken to its logical absurdity, it also means that men should always follow through whenever aroused.

Sounds like the perfect religion for incels who feel that any and all women must make themselves available to servicing their needs whenever ordered to do so.

[pnwguy]

Feb 1, 2022 17:10:11 GMT LFC said:

Two side notes. First, "defend DNA" at conception means no birth control pills or IUDs which prevent implantation, not conception. This is not an unusual stance for the right-wing Christianist whack-a-doodles but they rarely say it out loud. Second, from what I've read about the real Mother Teresa I'd say that she's not the best example to use.

From my understanding of the gains in knowledge made over decades of fertility research is that a high percentage of fertilized eggs don't naturally end in a live birth. The blastocyst stops cellular division, it fails implantation, or it aborts within a day or so in the endometrium, with no indication to the woman that something was happening. Typically it is thought these are the result of chromosomal anomalies that are severe enough that the protein production needed for continued growth can't develop. I have seen some sources estimate this is maybe a third to half of conceptions, depending on the age of the ovum.

That would statistically lead one to believe that if you had 2 children as a couple, perhaps you had conceived another that didn't survive. What are the answers to God as "the greatest destroyer of babies"?

[goldenvalley]

Feb 1, 2022 19:05:11 GMT pnwguy said:

Feb 1, 2022 17:10:11 GMT LFC said:

Two side notes. First, "defend DNA" at conception means no birth control pills or IUDs which prevent implantation, not conception. This is not an unusual stance for the right-wing Christianist whack-a-doodles but they rarely say it out loud. Second, from what I've read about the real Mother Teresa I'd say that she's not the best example to use.

From my understanding of the gains in knowledge made over decades of fertility research is that a high percentage of fertilized eggs don't naturally end in a live birth. The blastocyst stops cellular division, it fails implantation, or it aborts within a day or so in the endometrium, with no indication to the woman that something was happening. Typically it is thought these are the result of chromosomal anomalies that are severe enough that the protein production needed for continued growth can't develop. I have seen some sources estimate this is maybe a third to half of conceptions, depending on the age of the ovum.

That would statistically lead one to believe that if you had 2 children as a couple, perhaps you had conceived another that didn't survive. What are the answers to God as "the greatest destroyer of babies"?

You're talking science!  What's that got to do with anything?

[LFC]

Feb 1, 2022 19:05:11 GMT pnwguy said:

That would statistically lead one to believe that if you had 2 children as a couple, perhaps you had conceived another that didn't survive. What are the answers to God as "the greatest destroyer of babies"?

It's all a part of His plan. Duh.

[AnBr]

Feb 1, 2022 17:10:11 GMT LFC said:

Does religion cause moral sickness or do morally sick people become religious? Or is it a cycle where each reinforces the other? Whatever the case, this man is sick.

Todd Akin Walked So This Guy Could … Do This

Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate Garrett Soldano has some truly egregious beliefs about abortion, according to an interview with right-wing podcaster April Moss earlier this month that was unearthed by a progressive publication, Heartland Signal, yesterday.

• Instead of letting survivors of rape get abortions, “how about we start inspiring women in the culture to let them understand and know how heroic they are, and how unbelievable that they are, that God put them in this moment?” Soldano suggested.

• Soldano emphasized a need to “defend the DNA” at conception because people who want abortions might end up killing the next Mother Teresa. “They don’t know,” he said. “That little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity.”

Two side notes. First, "defend DNA" at conception means no birth control pills or IUDs which prevent implantation, not conception. This is not an unusual stance for the right-wing Christianist whack-a-doodles but they rarely say it out loud. Second, from what I've read about the real Mother Teresa I'd say that she's not the best example to use.

Don't forget with legitimate rape the baby maker's body has a way to shut that all down.

[pnwguy]

Is it just me, or does Garrett look like he's practiced something? 

[LFC]

These people are so f***ed up.

Some evangelical churches are sounding the alarm on "woke" people, saying that woke ideology is a threat to the gospel by emphasizing racial differences that pit people against each other, according to Arkansas seminary professor Owen Strachan.

“When you embrace a system like critical race theory or intersectionality that teaches you that people who are in the majority basically are in the wrong — so, for example, that white people by virtue of being part of the white power bloc have privilege, have responsibility, honestly, when we’re not speaking politely, have complicity in oppression — that warps the gospel," Strachan told Religion News Service.

“That is not a gospel conviction," he added. "That’s not taught in Scripture. People who are from the upper tiers of society in the Book of Acts are not condemned for being part of the upper tier of society.”

When it comes to the idea of systemic racism or reparations for past racism, Strachan says that the Bible does not hold people accountable for sins of the past.

But according to University of Pennsylvania religion scholar and the author of “White Evangelical Racism” Anthea Butler, white evangelical leaders have always faced the dilemma of wanting to bring diversity to the church without disrupting the status quo outside the church.

“On the one hand, evangelicals wanted souls to be saved,” Butler writes in her book. “On the other, they wanted everyone to stay in their places.”

I again wonder if they start out this f***ed up or if religion does it to them. Or is it a self reinforcing cycle that starts with a vulnerable person?

[goldenvalley]

Feb 8, 2022 22:48:59 GMT LFC said:

These people are so f***ed up.

Some evangelical churches are sounding the alarm on "woke" people, saying that woke ideology is a threat to the gospel by emphasizing racial differences that pit people against each other, according to Arkansas seminary professor Owen Strachan.

“When you embrace a system like critical race theory or intersectionality that teaches you that people who are in the majority basically are in the wrong — so, for example, that white people by virtue of being part of the white power bloc have privilege, have responsibility, honestly, when we’re not speaking politely, have complicity in oppression — that warps the gospel," Strachan told Religion News Service.

“That is not a gospel conviction," he added. "That’s not taught in Scripture. People who are from the upper tiers of society in the Book of Acts are not condemned for being part of the upper tier of society.”

When it comes to the idea of systemic racism or reparations for past racism, Strachan says that the Bible does not hold people accountable for sins of the past.

But according to University of Pennsylvania religion scholar and the author of “White Evangelical Racism” Anthea Butler, white evangelical leaders have always faced the dilemma of wanting to bring diversity to the church without disrupting the status quo outside the church.

“On the one hand, evangelicals wanted souls to be saved,” Butler writes in her book. “On the other, they wanted everyone to stay in their places.”

I again wonder if they start out this f***ed up or if religion does it to them. Or is it a self reinforcing cycle that starts with a vulnerable person?

Some people need structure, need hierarchy.  Ambiguity frightens them.  And they want to be told they'll be all right if they do minimal things like tithe to one of these churches and show up on Sundays.