And with that Scott, ME tells you, you will never do enough, unless you repent in your entirety.

quote:

repent

That's snarky, Shanks, or maybe passive aggressive.

Here's a song for you, Scott and Shanks:

https://youtu.be/w_HPJOSclkw?si=BHUYcZj4qzP8k4KY

I was aiming for irony

Nah the songs not for me, and I dont think I see how it can be for Scott either. You just dont listen.

Alright on both comments.

I was aiming for humor to lighten up.

But, you and Scott should enjoy this:

https://youtu.be/rQC4-XKzrnk?si=yYFRFVQDZ9EVCTg1

MAGA all in on Trump at CPAC: Michael Moore x Melber

==================================================

Ya just gotta watch the video till the end. I know Michael Moore will give you a case of chagrins or angst or maybe just the creeps, but the end is a good one.

"GOP RIP"

I enjoyed that. The embryos in the hall was funny as hell. I understand the sentiments.

Just one question and its not against that per se.

But.

What happens If Biden is admitted to hospital 2 weeks before the election?

quote:

What happens If Biden is admitted to hospital 2 weeks before the election?

Likewise for Trump, except maybe add the not-so-hypothetical scenario of what happens if he's incarcerated two weeks before the election?

He's running on the get out of jail free pass platform - ya know.

I saw an article recently answering your question. But, I didn't read it. Look it up.

Maybe they will substitute Michael Moore.

Its kind of not likewise for trump from your, and to some degree my perspective. If Trump ends up in hospital or ineligible, the country has dodged a bullet. If Biden does the country is at more risk.

My point is, I do not feel the left is doing the best job of ensuring the hypothetical worst case scenario you have put forward, will not happen.
There seems top be alot of vocal angst, but not alot of on the ground action.

Give the people like Scott/ Me of this world, someone they can get behind, and not leave it too the best of a worst choice scenario.

quote:

Maybe they will substitute Michael Moore.

Missed that.

I actually wish someone like John stewart or Bill Maher would get off the sideline and get involved. Im sure there are better choices in the political arena, But as people speaking from the left, I can find common ground with them.
Likewise fro republicans, Mike Rowe. if hes even republican. at least he represents to me what the right should be about.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Maybe they will substitute Michael Moore.

Missed that.

I actually wish someone like John stewart or Bill Maher would get off the sideline and get involved.

I added/edited in the Michael Moore zinger for fun.

The sidelines are easier, far Less stress, easier if not more money, more fun, less downside.

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e3eace0c7d551d&ei=42

Christian extremists poised to overtake Trump agenda

Christian nationalists appear to see an opportunity in a potential second Donald Trump administration to take advantage of Trump's fixation on personal grievances by imposing their own agenda of rolling back women's social progress to before the sexual revolution. Michelle Goldberg, columnist for The New York Times, and Tim Miller, writer-at-large for The Bulwark, talk with Alex Wagner about how Donald Trump's new friends on the religious right are setting him up for an election disaster.

==========================================

There are at least two comments in the video that caught my attention:

"The dog that caught the car"

"They haven't thought through the ways their ideology collides with reality."

That is so true. It's the mark of zealots. Ideology drives them, despite and aside from reality. The problem is that we all lean into Christianity one way or another, even atheists and agnostics. Our morals and ethics are always bouncing off, often meshing with (traditional) Christian values and distinctions of right and wrong.

One of your arguments - choose between Sharia and Christian Nationalism presumes that anything Christian is better. The reason I refuse to choose is because that's a trap. It's a deflection from the collision of ideology with reality. Failure to recognize that leads to the five "c"s.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I don't think a "minority" of conservatives could pull that off. I think the "minority" is a fallacy considering the complicit and the complacent and the compliant and the conditioned and the clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Maybe they will substitute Michael Moore.

Missed that.

I actually wish someone like John stewart or Bill Maher would get off the sideline and get involved. Im sure there are better choices in the political arena, But as people speaking from the left, I can find common ground with them.
Likewise fro republicans, Mike Rowe. if hes even republican. at least he represents to me what the right should be about.

That is the kind of thinking that got a million Americans killed by COVID. The Presidency is not about the ability to come up with a snarky comment or snappy slogan, it's about knowing what government does, and how, getting good people in the Cabinet to run the various departments and agencies and making decisions.

Trump failed in every possible way. He appointed people who would suck up to him while saying nice things about him, or outright grifters like Kushner, then replaced them on a whim, never understood the role of the Federal government and when decisions at the executive level were required he either made terrible choices, like abandoning the Kurds and surrendering to the Taliban or sucking up to Kim, or refused to face that there was a problem, like COVID.

Jeff, read what I wrote. I said there should be better people from the political arena. I was just running with MEs example of a political commentator.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Jeff, read what I wrote. I said there should be better people from the political arena. I was just running with MEs example of a political commentator.

There ARE no better people from the political arena than Joe Biden. The closest in terms of experience would likely be Hillary Clinton but she has a 30-year Republican smear campaign against her.

It's not the President's job to patch roads or unload trucks, it's to make decisions as to what policy to pursue and who to appoint to get it done, and to make good decisions as issues arise unanticipated. That can only be effectively done by someone with a clear understanding of what the Federal government can and cannot do, and how it works (or doesn't).

Obama was photogenic and slickly articulate, but he had the decades of experience of Joe Biden immediately to hand.

Biden stutters and shuffles sometimes but he knows what the fuck he is doing, one need look no further than the economy and the rebuilding of NATO to see it.

So how did you get into the position where they are the only choices?

In your whole country there are no other democratic senators, governors etc who can do the job?
Or is it just because the party shut down any idea of another candidate having a chance?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Jeff, read what I wrote. I said there should be better people from the political arena. I was just running with MEs example of a political commentator.

My example, Michael Moore, was a joke, and intended to be taken that way. Apparently, you took it seriously.

BTW, you should know that on this topic, Christian Nationalism, as much as I know, from experience and reading, etc., I really am in over my head on this. That's a statement of humility in the realm of reality, not a confession of ignorance.

But I challenge anyone herein to claim and support that they are not also in over their head.

Christian Nationalism is not easy to understand, as a concept.

There are many known factors and also quandaries.

I'll give examples of what I'm talking about. This isn't easy, especially to be clear yet concise.

I found this article and wondered how it fits in some thread on this forum, or start a new thread.

It's titled The New American Nihilism. It's an opinion article, but what ain't?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...3eace0c7d551d&ei=130

My first thought was at least Christian Nationalism is not Christian Nihilism. But on second thought, maybe that's not true.

This idea has been explored for a long time in philosophy. Some make the case that nihilism stems from Christianity, mostly it's called Christian existentialism.

I looked for brevity and clarity in explaining:

https://youtu.be/vShSGy34LnE?si=ByghbKkFi-5crOxW

Kierkegaard - Leap of Faith

The leap of faith is the act of believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason.
This phrase was coined by Kierkegaard, the father of Christian existentialism.
The Leap of Faith is rooted in the distinction between Belief and Faith.

Also:

https://youtu.be/M0HrmW7UN2Q?si=ESsld35uDM4bR1md

Note: This is from Overthink podcast. How appropriate is that?

Kierkegaard on the Three Spheres of Existence

Dr. Ellie Anderson (philosophy professor and co-host of Overthink podcast) introduces Søren Kierkegaard's view of the three stages or spheres of existence from Stages on Life's Way, identifying the aesthetic, ethical, and religious spheres.

=================================================


The thing about Faith is the key: "the act of believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason." Isn't that one tenet of nihilism? Isn't the only thing, faith, separating Christian Nationalist's worldview from abject nihilism, or IOW an alternate realm outside reality?

Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

Colloquially: smoke and mirrors

After all, we see on this forum many who claim to have given up on the system, say there is no point in voting if "they" are just going to steal the election anyway, Isn't Trumpism a form of nihilism? What is the relationship between Trumpism and Christian nationalism if not nihilism?

Christian Nationalists want to tear the system down, but they do have a plan of replacement to avoid chaos. That may be an exception to pure nihilism, but may be a distinction with little meaning.

Ahh the written word. Yep I knew you were not being serious. My comments re Stewart etc were in the vein of running with that in general conversation that there are some on the left out there with a common sense approach. Those two have both to some extent, expressed frustration at the issues on the left that push voters too the right.

And as for the rest. Im not religious, and have no comprehension of what it means to beleive in any god/s so I maybe wrong on this, but it seems to me that any nation that has taken a strong religious morality into its running and law making, has failed and slipped into totalitarianism. If I were religious, id much prefer the right to practice my religion, over decree, because of the inherent risks to the nation the second option risks.

quote:

it seems to me that any nation that has taken a strong religious morality into its running and law making, has failed and slipped into totalitarianism. If I were religious, id much prefer the right to practice my religion, over decree, because of the inherent risks to the nation the second option risks.

I quoted part of your post to capture the thought, and focus on that.

Perhaps, because you are atheist and I'm agnostic, both secular, we can see the truth in what you said there.

I just presented the long version in my explanation above.

However, you see, the right to practice a chosen religion, or not one at all, is not what Christian Nationalism is all about.

It's about conflating far right Christian worldview, ideology, faith (alt-reality), personal and national identity, by decree (dominance).

Im nothing. I used atheist because I needed a term and was being lazy. But I agree and have for a long time that atheism is or has become a pointless religion focussed on hating other religions. Taken to its full extent you could well see it used to stop other people practicing thier beliefs.

Well, I'm glad you clarified that. I don't see you as militant and neither am I.

I see Christian Nationalism as militant, if not malignant.

That's why I oppose it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Jeff, read what I wrote. I said there should be better people from the political arena. I was just running with MEs example of a political commentator.

My example, Michael Moore, was a joke, and intended to be taken that way. Apparently, you took it seriously.

BTW, you should know that on this topic, Christian Nationalism, as much as I know, from experience and reading, etc., I really am in over my head on this. That's a statement of humility in the realm of reality, not a confession of ignorance.

But I challenge anyone herein to claim and support that they are not also in over their head.

Christian Nationalism is not easy to understand, as a concept.

There are many known factors and also quandaries.

I'll give examples of what I'm talking about. This isn't easy, especially to be clear yet concise.

I found this article and wondered how it fits in some thread on this forum, or start a new thread.

It's titled The New American Nihilism. It's an opinion article, but what ain't?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...3eace0c7d551d&ei=130

My first thought was at least Christian Nationalism is not Christian Nihilism. But on second thought, maybe that's not true.

This idea has been explored for a long time in philosophy. Some make the case that nihilism stems from Christianity, mostly it's called Christian existentialism.

I looked for brevity and clarity in explaining:

https://youtu.be/vShSGy34LnE?si=ByghbKkFi-5crOxW

Kierkegaard - Leap of Faith

The leap of faith is the act of believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason.
This phrase was coined by Kierkegaard, the father of Christian existentialism.
The Leap of Faith is rooted in the distinction between Belief and Faith.

Also:

https://youtu.be/M0HrmW7UN2Q?si=ESsld35uDM4bR1md

Note: This is from Overthink podcast. How appropriate is that?

Kierkegaard on the Three Spheres of Existence

Dr. Ellie Anderson (philosophy professor and co-host of Overthink podcast) introduces Søren Kierkegaard's view of the three stages or spheres of existence from Stages on Life's Way, identifying the aesthetic, ethical, and religious spheres.

=================================================


The thing about Faith is the key: "the act of believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason." Isn't that one tenant of nihilism? Isn't the only thing, faith, separating Christian Nationalist's worldview from abject nihilism, or IOW an alternate realm outside reality?

Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

Colloquially: smoke and mirrors

After all, we see on this forum many who claim to have given up on the system, say there is no point in voting if "they" are just going to steal the election anyway, Isn't Trumpism a form of nihilism? What is the relationship between Trumpism and Christian nationalism if not nihilism?

Christian Nationalists want to tear the system down, but they do have a plan of replacement to avoid chaos. That may be an exception to pure nihilism, but may be a distinction with little meaning.

Christian Nationalism is neither complicated nor esoteric, it is simply the mistaken idea that this Country was founded as a Christian country, to be run on Christian principles by Christian leaders rather than democratic principles protecting the rights of all citizens.

In the current iteration of the Christian Right that would amount to turning it over to pedophiles.

Just read the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that is actually a sermon masquerading as an interpretation of Law.

Yea, Jeff5, you explained it in perspective of effect.

I was explaining from the perspective of cause.

For effect, it's clearer than cause.

One obvious effect, if implemented, is Project 25. The meat of the plan is evidence enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Jeff, read what I wrote. I said there should be better people from the political arena. I was just running with MEs example of a political commentator.

There ARE no better people from the political arena than Joe Biden. The closest in terms of experience would likely be Hillary Clinton but she has a 30-year Republican smear campaign against her.

It's not the President's job to patch roads or unload trucks, it's to make decisions as to what policy to pursue and who to appoint to get it done, and to make good decisions as issues arise unanticipated. That can only be effectively done by someone with a clear understanding of what the Federal government can and cannot do, and how it works (or doesn't).

Obama was photogenic and slickly articulate, but he had the decades of experience of Joe Biden immediately to hand.

Biden stutters and shuffles sometimes but he knows what the fuck he is doing, one need look no further than the economy and the rebuilding of NATO to see it.

Delusional.....just like slo joe........


.

quote:

Christian Nationalism is neither complicated nor esoteric, it is simply the mistaken idea that this Country was founded as a Christian country, to be run on Christian principles by Christian leaders

Well.....it, uhm......was!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Christian Nationalism is neither complicated nor esoteric, it is simply the mistaken idea that this Country was founded as a Christian country, to be run on Christian principles by Christian leaders

Well.....it, uhm......was!

How many times is Jesus mentioned in the Constitution?

Sort of.

It was founded based on the judeochristian tradition and Adams did very clearly state that the government would work only as long as the governed were moral. Classical democracy fell apart when folks voted largesse from the public coffers.

They did not specify that it had to be Christian. They did say moral, and that was religious in those days- atheism was not common and the whole idea that secular humanism could replace religion was not a thought. They thought certain religions were not moral- like those of folks that were primitive and did things like torture or conduct cannibalism. They did tend to feel that the natives had issues with being immoral.

So while they admitted they came from religious principles, they also refused to use religion as a justification after seeing what sectarian violence repeatedly had caused in Europe.

Generally, the teachings of the great religions as far as what they ask of their adherents are good and moral.

The references to god come from god given and
inalienable rights and statements about the that are in our founding documents.

The attempts to put up a “wall” between church and state have caused some significant problems in the decay of public morality. These were not envisioned by the founders… but neither was a litmus test requiring you to be a Christian, either.

Frankly, you are not a very moral person if you can’t explain why something should be against the law without resorting to “because god said so.”

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Christian Nationalism is neither complicated nor esoteric, it is simply the mistaken idea that this Country was founded as a Christian country, to be run on Christian principles by Christian leaders

Well.....it, uhm......was!

quote:

Frankly, you are not a very moral person if you can’t explain why something should be against the law without resorting to “because god said so.”

I like that statement. Its how it should be, and leaves it open for people with or without belief, to be able to act morally.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

Frankly, you are not a very moral person if you can’t explain why something should be against the law without resorting to “because god said so.”

I had to read that sentence three times to get it.

Let me re-structure:

Frankly, you are not a very moral person if you can’t explain, without resorting to “because god said so", why something should be against the law.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The attempts to put up a “wall” between church and state have caused some significant problems in the decay of public morality. These were not envisioned by the founders..

I disagree with that claim.

I think the attempts to conflate church and state is contrary to founding principles, and that's the prime tenet of Christain Nationalism.

The constitution is secular - that's a fact. Thus, all laws derived are secular. None of our laws are "because god said so". All laws granted authority under the constitution find their basis in Jefferson's and Locke's secular social contract.

The separation of church and state is inherent in all our laws, no exception that I know of. If it were not so, the Founders would have said so.

Christian Nationalism wants to change that.

This walks are 1) legally necessary, and 2) good.

It was not envisioned by the Foundres 1st Amendment restrictions applying to the states. Then the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine came along.

The state must be neutral and not establish benefits for one religious sect over the other. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Frankly, you are not a very moral person if you can’t explain why something should be against the law without resorting to “because god said so.”

I like that statement. Its how it should be, and leaves it open for people with or without belief, to be able to act morally.

Yes, I like it too. Well written!

This video covers several topics going herein, including Christian Nationalism.

So, I'll just post it here as a catch-all.

https://youtu.be/YZ2TgRHMOo4?si=t4RcKxwfALMOujQw

PBS
Brooks and Capehart on U.S. aid for Ukraine wavering on partisan battle lines

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This walks are 1) legally necessary, and 2) good.

It was not envisioned by the Foundres 1st Amendment restrictions applying to the states. Then the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine came along.

The state must be neutral and not establish benefits for one religious sect over the other. Period.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence! That is the intent of the establishment clause!

It was not ever intended to be freedom from religion OR a wall of separation.


.

The 1st amendment contains two clauses exercise and neutral.

The Founders never intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.

This he’s been well established by Supreme Court precedent going back to the 1800s. It was never a serious question that. They were understood as limitations upon the Federal, General Government as horse trading to ratify the Constitution.

It is only the Incorporation Doctrine of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment that restricts state legislatures concerning the establishment of Religion from the federal standpoint.


A state should never be aloud to endorse a religious sect. I know folks on Baptist churches who would not let the most pious here on AR through the door. Everyone wants their religion to govern until someone else has the stroke.

It is mob rule, and the destruction of Free Will.

My second sentence you agree with cannot happen without the walls between state and religion.

I'm sure some Christians are reading this thread, mostly disagreeing, but not saying because they know their rationalizations are lame.

So, here's a post for them. I can't affirm accuracy or thoroughness, because I don't want the brain damage studying it too much will cause. And besides, I don't believe any of it. But that's not the point. They do. This video is for them.

I think Trump, Trumpism, and the association of evangelicals and Christian Nationalism and all that's related can be entirely explained and understood purely from a secular POV. I think it's a collusion or merging of evils, entirely rooted in human nature, worldly - not the devil, not sin, not prophesy, not Biblical.

The person making the video is apparently a qualified true believer.

https://youtu.be/1014PFSIq-U?si=WzS-xmfcvhBEghVd

15 Bible Verses That Identify Donald J. Trump as the Antichrist

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm sure some Christians are reading this thread, mostly disagreeing, but not saying because they know their rationalizations are lame.

Uh, no.

I'm not and I suspect we're not saying anything because I and we know this is your favorite topic here, its been beaten to death dozens of times and theres no reason to continue discussion with you on this matter.

M.E., I know you, (within the confines of AR,) and as Ive said before, like you quite a bit. That being true, when you start this ranting and seething over Christianity it seems obvious to me and I think others to simply let you run out of breath on the topic. As for me, I'll frequently read the articles you post, never, ever watch your videos or really anyone elses, and I accept you for what I understand you to be.

And really, "The End".

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm sure some Christians are reading this thread, mostly disagreeing, but not saying because they know their rationalizations are lame.

Uh, no.

I'm not and I suspect we're not saying anything because I and we know this is your favorite topic here, its been beaten to death dozens of times and theres no reason to continue discussion with you on this matter.

M.E., I know you, (within the confines of AR,) and as Ive said before, like you quite a bit. That being true, when you start this ranting and seething over Christianity it seems obvious to me and I think others to simply let you run out of breath on the topic. As for me, I'll frequently read the articles you post, never, ever watch your videos or really anyone elses, and I accept you for what I understand you to be.

And really, "The End".

Amen!

quote:

seething
it seems obvious to me and I think others to simply let you run out of breath on the topic.

If I ever run out of breath on this topic, it will be literally not breathing.

Seething - Well, I've been there, done that for a long time, maybe close to 60 years, over fundamental Christianity.

And it's not my favorite topic. It's my most unfavorable topic. I think it's toxic, both personally and out there. I don't see dead people. I see live people who are hollow, filled with an ancient middle-east religion, dogma, and fantasy, turning their gears. And they want to turn other's gears likewise.

It used to be not so much in the public, national, political arenas as it is now. I used to find it easy to just ignore it. They minded their own business and me too, mostly. But I know them and how they think, what they think, and what they, the far-right sect, will do to the country. The malignity has grown, fed by Trump, and reciprocally feeding Trumpism.

It's okay that the true believers herein don't read or listen to my posts or links. I'm used to it. It's like talking to rocks anyway. But for those who will listen, the complacent, clueless, maybe the compliant, I persuade the best I can without getting nasty.

Anyway, yes, this forum is a good place to rant without the backlash from directly talking to defensive rocks.

However, you may have noticed that this whole issue of rising Christian Nationalism is throughout the media. They are doing a better job than I can. Really, it's not difficult to grasp, with no background. All one needs to do is read and listen to what the Christian Nationalists say about themselves and worldview and how they mesh personal ID with political and national ID.

Clone MTG a million times, for the reality of Christian Nationalism's twisted worldview, narratives and goals:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b36b5cb9bab15&ei=104

Marjorie Taylor Greene schooled as she claims the Founding Fathers would've been considered Christian nationalists
Opinion by Debapriya Bhattacharya • 4h

President John Adams said it best.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
President John Adams said it best.

Darn it - you pushed me to look that up.

Some of his quotes seem contradictory, but I suspect on further analysis, they are not.

Attributed:

By the time he wrote this letter his theological position can best be described as Unitarian. In this letter Adams tells Jefferson that "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

Like the religious liberals of his time, Adams believed that the essential message of Jesus was ethical, not doctrinal. Truth, justice, liberty, and brotherhood are the principles of Christianity, and it is these which Adams felt coincided with the principles of the American Revolution.

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” “But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”

Religious beliefs were not seen by John Adams as the most sacred and should have the greatest force of law. Instead, he believed that certain beliefs and rules, regardless of whether they are based in religion, are essential for society's well-being.

Christian Nationalism is just like so many other religions.
There is no established set of beliefs among C N's, to the extent the sate should support Christianity. As per Britanica web on Christian Nationality.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...threats-to-democracy

What is Christian nationalism and why it raises concerns about threats to democracy
Feb 1, 2024 6:30 PM EST

(also see video)

White Christian nationalism has been in the headlines quite a lot as of late. Brad Onishi is a former evangelical minister who once identified as a Christian nationalist himself. He left the church in 2005 and began studying religion and extremism. Laura Barrón-López spoke with Onishi to better understand the concept and its reach in American society and politics.

William Brangham:

The phrase white Christian nationalism has been in the headlines quite a bit recently, but what does it really mean?

Laura Barron-Lopez recently spoke to one expert to better understand the concept and its reach in American society.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Brad Onishi is a former evangelical minister who once identified as a Christian nationalist himself. He left the church in 2005 and began studying religion from the outside, including extremism.

He now hosts the popular podcast "Straight White American Jesus" and is the author of "Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism and What Comes Next."

I began by asking him what that term actually means.

Brad Onishi, Co-Host, "Straight White American Jesus": Christian nationalism is an ideology that is based around the idea that this is a Christian nation, that this was founded as a Christian nation, and, therefore, it should be a Christian nation today and should be so in the future.

According to survey data, Christian nationalists agree with statements like the federal government should declare the United States of America a Christian nation. Our laws should be based on Christian values. being a Christian is important if you want to be a real American.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Onishi tracks a number of subgroups and ideas under the umbrella of white Christian nationalism, including what's known as the New Apostolic Reformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tion#Notable_members

Brad Onishi:

Well, the New Apostolic Reformation is notable for a number of reasons.

One, it's built around the idea that Christians are called to a new transformation or reformation of the United States. These are Christians who want to revolutionize the way that our country looks, and to make it great again in terms of being a Christian nation.

They also are deeply invested in the notion of spiritual warfare, the idea that we are called as Christians to fight a cosmic battle between good and evil, and that it's our duty to be boots on the ground for God in that conflict. What this has led to some decades later is, the New Apostolic Reformation leaders, the apostles and the prophets that are really at the head of this movement were some of the earliest to support Donald Trump in 2016.

And they have remained steadfast in that support. They were at the very avant-garde of trying to get the 2020 election overturned in the wake of Joe Biden's victory and mobilizing folks to be at January 6. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of New Apostolic Reformation Christians at January 6, as an example.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

We know that two-thirds of white evangelicals sympathize or adhere to white Christian nationalist beliefs, so where do they fall within this larger movement?

Brad Onishi:

I think white evangelicals are the group we think of when we think of white Christian nationalism, and for good reason.

These are folks who, when we think about the Iowa caucuses, in 2016 Trump's white evangelical voters were about 20 percent of his share of voters in that cycle. Just a few weeks ago, in 2024, that grew to well over 50 percent.

White evangelicals remain committed to the MAGA movement, and one of the key indicators of why is Christian nationalism.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Are there leaders across these subgroups of white Christian nationalism that are tied to the former president directly or to his larger network?

Brad Onishi:

Yes.

For example, a group of New Apostolic Reformation leaders, apostles and prophets and others, were present at the White House a week before January 6. Speaker Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation. Speaker Mike Johnson is somebody who's sought the counsel and the friendship of Timothy Carscadden, who is a New Apostolic Reformation pastor from his home district in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Timothy Carscadden is a close associate with Dutch Sheets. Dutch Sheets is perhaps the most ardent Trump supporter in the New Apostolic Reformation. He's the one who may have done the most of any Christian leader in the United States to mobilize folks to try to overturn the 2020 election and to make sure to attend January 6.

One of the most frightening things, I think, about Mike Johnson is the flag he hangs outside of his office, an Appeal to Heaven Flag. The Appeal to Heaven Flag goes back to the Revolutionary War, George Washington. It was inspired by John Locke.

But over the last 10 years, the Appeal to Heaven Flag has been popularized by Dutch Sheets. Dutch Sheets sees the Appeal to Heaven Flag as a symbol of Christian revolution. If you look closely at January 6, you will see dozens of Appeal to Heaven Flags. It may have a long history, but in the contemporary context, it has a very specific meaning.

So the fact that Mike Johnson has it hanging outside of his office to me signifies how he understands his role as speaker of the House in terms of being a Christian and being an American.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

In a statement to the "NewsHour," a spokesperson for Johnson's office said — quote — "The speaker has long appreciated the rich history of the flag. Any implication that the speaker's use of the flag is connected to the events of January 6 is wildly inaccurate."

But Onishi says the concerning links go beyond the conservative politicians themselves. Last month, Lance Wallnau, a key New Apostolic Reformation figure, announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, the influential right-wing activist who leads Turning Point USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._election_activities

Brad Onishi:

They're going to be visiting and focusing on swing states, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania. They have claimed they have already signed up 2,500 churches, and they want to mobilize those churches directly for political involvement and specifically to get Trump reelected.

The two of them together signifies a crossover. It signifies a joining in a way that promises, I think, to be quite potent.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Meanwhile, some have mobilized around what GOP leaders have labeled an invasion at the southern border.

I asked Onishi about a protest convoy calling itself God's Army currently making its way to Texas.

Brad Onishi:

I think the end goal for the convoy is to kind of play a part or play a role in what they take to be the story that is unfolding in the United States.

Christian nationalists understand themselves to be playing a character. They are drawn into a narrative that says, you are at the last battle. You have a chance to do something that is much bigger than you. Will you answer that call? Will you come to D.C. on January 6? Will you ride with us to the southern border? Because these are the moments, these are the battles that will shape our country. This is the cosmic war between good and evil. Are you really going to sit on the sidelines?

Some of us can laugh that off. We can think that that's a fringe ideal, but January 6 was not something to laugh off. And some of the events we have seen since then, the swatting of judges' houses, the evacuations of capitols due to bomb threats, so many more examples, little fires everywhere, are not things we can laugh off.

And so I think the trucker convoy has cosmic goals as it plays a part in a very earthly standoff between Governor Abbott and the Biden administration.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Brad Onishi, thank you for your time.

Brad Onishi:

Thanks so much for having me.