Christian Nationalism - Page 2

Nosi · 20th November 2023, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Isn't there something in the States called the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution is MAGAt toilet paper.

Gulliver Foyle · 23rd November 2023, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Don't forget this old fella Ian Paisly - only available by the Wayback archive since his death but full-blown insanity regarding the threat posed by the Papists!

Thankfully no one holding such views could ever get into power anywhere...

Paisley was a terrorist and one of the instigating causes of the troubles alongside Frank Kitson.

Suddenly · 24th November 2023, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Well, there's a serious problem with the Christian Nationalist agenda, and it comes from, of all places, constitutional originalist doctrine if applied properly. You see, the way I've always understood it, the primary reason that the constitutional convention rejected the notion of establishing a national religion was the notion that you had to come to God through choice, and not because of social pressure or force.

And that is entirely in line with the "liberal" reading of the 2nd amendment whether you're a Methodist preacher (which is where that concept came from) or not. It was fairly clearly the deciding factor. It's kind of ironic that the concept came from Protestantism, itself... later to be promptly forgotten in the 2nd wave of hellfire evangelists who immediately followed.

Admittedly, this might be a simplified reading of it. I'm not an expert in American History.

The problem here isn't history. It's that the judges pushing originalist doctrines don't at all care about originalism and only apply it is it is consistent with their policy goals. Once in a blue moon you see an originalist voting against a conservative position on originalist grounds, but it's an attention grabbing rare exception.

This isn't so much hypocrisy as much as originalism being inherently nonsense useful mostly as a way for judges to deflect moral blame when they make morally reprehensible decisions.

Which is why it is such a fit with religion. Just substitute blather about the founders for the will of God and there you go.

With one large difference in that a lot of people who immediately see the absurdity of biblical textualism have trouble seeing constitutional textualism for what it is.

Manopolus · 24th November 2023, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The problem here isn't history. It's that the judges pushing originalist doctrines don't at all care about originalism and only apply it is it is consistent with their policy goals. Once in a blue moon you see an originalist voting against a conservative position on originalist grounds, but it's an attention grabbing rare exception.

This isn't so much hypocrisy as much as originalism being inherently nonsense useful mostly as a way for judges to deflect moral blame when they make morally reprehensible decisions.

Which is why it is such a fit with religion. Just substitute blather about the founders for the will of God and there you go.

With one large difference in that a lot of people who immediately see the absurdity of biblical textualism have trouble seeing constitutional textualism for what it is.

No argument here, but it does give a basis for oral arguments in the court as well.

20th November 2023, 07:37 PM	#41
Nosi Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,116	Originally Posted by Blue Mountain Isn't there something in the States called the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution is MAGAt toilet paper.
Nosi Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,116	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

23rd November 2023, 12:00 AM	#42
Gulliver Foyle Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cork baaaiii Posts: 2,815	Originally Posted by Darat Don't forget this old fella Ian Paisly - only available by the Wayback archive since his death but full-blown insanity regarding the threat posed by the Papists! Thankfully no one holding such views could ever get into power anywhere... Paisley was a terrorist and one of the instigating causes of the troubles alongside Frank Kitson.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo Factio Republicanus esse delendam

24th November 2023, 08:10 AM	#43
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 5,740	Originally Posted by Manopolus Well, there's a serious problem with the Christian Nationalist agenda, and it comes from, of all places, constitutional originalist doctrine if applied properly. You see, the way I've always understood it, the primary reason that the constitutional convention rejected the notion of establishing a national religion was the notion that you had to come to God through choice, and not because of social pressure or force. And that is entirely in line with the "liberal" reading of the 2nd amendment whether you're a Methodist preacher (which is where that concept came from) or not. It was fairly clearly the deciding factor. It's kind of ironic that the concept came from Protestantism, itself... later to be promptly forgotten in the 2nd wave of hellfire evangelists who immediately followed. Admittedly, this might be a simplified reading of it. I'm not an expert in American History. The problem here isn't history. It's that the judges pushing originalist doctrines don't at all care about originalism and only apply it is it is consistent with their policy goals. Once in a blue moon you see an originalist voting against a conservative position on originalist grounds, but it's an attention grabbing rare exception. This isn't so much hypocrisy as much as originalism being inherently nonsense useful mostly as a way for judges to deflect moral blame when they make morally reprehensible decisions. Which is why it is such a fit with religion. Just substitute blather about the founders for the will of God and there you go. With one large difference in that a lot of people who immediately see the absurdity of biblical textualism have trouble seeing constitutional textualism for what it is.

24th November 2023, 11:18 AM	#44
Manopolus Metaphorical Anomaly Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Brownbackistan Posts: 7,893	Originally Posted by Suddenly The problem here isn't history. It's that the judges pushing originalist doctrines don't at all care about originalism and only apply it is it is consistent with their policy goals. Once in a blue moon you see an originalist voting against a conservative position on originalist grounds, but it's an attention grabbing rare exception. This isn't so much hypocrisy as much as originalism being inherently nonsense useful mostly as a way for judges to deflect moral blame when they make morally reprehensible decisions. Which is why it is such a fit with religion. Just substitute blather about the founders for the will of God and there you go. With one large difference in that a lot of people who immediately see the absurdity of biblical textualism have trouble seeing constitutional textualism for what it is. No argument here, but it does give a basis for oral arguments in the court as well.