The Museum of the Bible Is a Safe Space for Christian Nationalists (Opinion)
LOOKING at it, you'd think that the Museum of the Bible was, in fact, a museum. But the organizers of Revolution 2017, a recent gathering at the museum featuring speakers who intend to "transform nations" by "igniting a holy reformation in every sphere of society," know better.
"We wholeheartedly believe the Museum of the Bible represents an 'Ark of the Covenant' for our nation, bearing witness to his goodness," they proclaimed in their promotional material.
Calling it an "ark" may seem premature. But the business about "transforming nations" is quite serious. The Museum of the Bible, which sits a few blocks southwest of the United States Capitol, is a continuation of politics by other means.
A typical museum might invite visitors to explore the multiple meanings of the Bible and the complex history of its reception in different cultures over time. But this museum is not the place for that kind of inquiry; you're here to celebrate. The exhibits will rock you -- literally, when you take a simulated roller-coaster ride through selected biblical inscriptions on display in the nation's capital -- but they won't shake your convictions.
If you walk in thinking that the Bible has a single meaning, that the evidence of archaeology and history has served to confirm its truth, that it is the greatest force for good humanity has ever known and that it is the founding text of the American republic -- well, then, you will leave with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.
The museum is a safe space for Christian nationalists, and that is the key to understanding its political mission. The aim isn't anything so crude as the immediate conversion of tourists to a particular variety of evangelical Christianity. Its subtler task is to embed a certain set of assumptions in the landscape of the capital.
One individual who definitely gets it is Ralph Drollinger, the founder and president of Capitol Ministries and one of the most politically influential pastors in America. This fall, Mr. Drollinger held a training conference for some 80 international associates at the museum on the topic of "creating and sustaining discipleship ministries to political leaders."
Mr. Drollinger believes that social welfare programs "have no basis in Scripture," that Christians in government have an obligation to hire only Christians and that women should not be allowed to teach grown men. He lays out his thinking in a 2013 book, "Rebuilding America: The Biblical Blueprint."
Mr. Drollinger was an early, passionate supporter of Donald Trump 's presidential candidacy. The "institution of the state" is "an avenger of wrath," he explains, and its "God-given responsibility" is "to moralize a fallen world through the use of force." Apparently, President Trump excels in these biblical criteria for leadership.
Mr. Drollinger is dedicated to communicating those views in weekly Bible study groups. The participants in his groups, however, aren't just anybody. They include Mike Pompeo, the director of the C.I.A.; Attorney General Jeff Sessions; Vice President Mike Pence; Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education; and other senior officials in the Trump administration. Mr. Drollinger seeks to institute similar if less-star-studded Bible study groups in all 50 state capitals.
Mr. Drollinger claims to have planted 24 operations overseas and hopes "to create 200 ministries in 200 foreign federal capitals." In 2015, his group was invited to "plant a discipleship Bible study ministry" in Belarus for the benefit of that nation's political leaders. His wife, Danielle Drollinger, attended as a representative of the Museum of the Bible, with a promise that the museum's Bible curriculum would soon be translated into Russian.
This fall, the museum also hosted Revive Us 2, a "national family meeting" organized by Kirk Cameron, a television actor who has become a conservative Christian celebrity. The event was broadcast live from the museum to movie theaters around the country with the message that national unity can be achieved only through a religious "awakening" and allegiance to conservative Christianity.
The intensely politicized religion that appears to be taking up residence at the Museum of the Bible isn't there by accident. When Steve Green, the museum's founder and the president of the Hobby Lobby crafts chain, formed the museum's parent organization in 2010, he informed the I.R.S. that its purpose was "to bring to life the living word of God, to tell its compelling story of preservation, and to inspire confidence in the absolute authority and reliability of the Bible." In 2012, the language was changed to say that the aim was simply "to invite people to engage with the Bible."
Mr. Green rose to fame by getting the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to confer on Hobby Lobby the right to withhold federally mandated reproductive health care coverage from its female employees. The Green family lent artifacts to the Creation Museum in Kentucky and offers support to a "religious literacy" program aimed at public school students detailing the consequences they face if they disobey God.
Joining the Hobby Lobby stores on the donor wall that memorializes large gifts to the Museum of the Bible are a dozen-plus foundations that routinely back conservative Christian causes. There is also a lot of Amway money supporting the museum, including the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation and other foundations connected to the DeVos family.
Given the theologico-political goals of its founders and patrons, it isn't hard to see that the location of this museum was an act of symbolic and practical genius. If you're going to build a Christian nation, this is where you start.
That's why Cindy Jacobs, a leading figure in the fast-growing world of charismatic Christianity, and a featured speaker at the Revolution 2017 event in December, described the museum as "God's base camp." There, in the auditorium of the museum, Ms. Jacobs offered this prediction: "The army of the heavens marches into Washington, D.C., and marches out of Washington, D.C." Soon enough, "they go into North Korea."
Skeptics may question whether God is really storing his ammo on the corner of Fourth and D Streets SW. But the people doing his work at the Museum of the Bible don't, and they're pretty sure that the election of 2016 proved them right.
According to Ms. Jacobs, Mr. Trump "will be seated and mantled with the power of God."
RED BOX RULE : THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT THE VIABILITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, NOR IS IT TO BE USED TO PROMOTE CHRISTIANITY. THE TOPIC IS CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM AND THE INSERTION OF THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT INTO GOVERNMENT, AND SPECIFICALLY THE BIBLE MUSEUM IN WASHINGTON DC.
OFF TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE REMOVED.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
78 visitors
RED BOX RULE : THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT THE VIABILITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, NOR IS IT TO BE USED TO PROMOTE CHRISTIANITY. THE TOPIC IS CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM AND THE INSERTION OF THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT INTO GOVERNMENT, AND SPECIFICALLY THE BIBLE MUSEUM IN WASHINGTON DC.
OFF TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE REMOVED.
It seems Mr. Drollinger doesn't believe in the bible, especially Jesus' teachings, or in the Constitution itself. He seems like quite the misogynistic theocrat. Just the kind of person we should be quite wary of.
All the more reason to be concerned about individuals like this.
He just the capability of influencing those in government. God help us all if he ever was elected into office (pun intended). But it's not his political power, or lack thereof, that's the issue. It's his views which are concerning.
He seems to have personal relationships , in terms of leading Bible studies, with numerous people in the Trump administration.
The totality of the article indicates that Bible thumpers are indeed covetous of power in Washington , and if left unchecked do INTEND to make America a theocracy to the most degree they can accomplish. It is up to the rest of us to prevent that.
You tell me. I haven't seen non-believers try to influence the government or push for the use of force against others.
I'd only be "scared" if Mr. Drollinger was actually elected to office. But it's individuals like him and his views which we need to be vigilant about.
There is a big difference between not caring if someone you want to vote for is a Christian, and actively working towards Christianity having a major role in government.
If Drollinger believes that the Bible does not support welfare, and he meets with politicians to study the Bible, it is obvious that he believes that his interpretation of the Bible should be adopted by the people leading the government.
Indeed. It's individuals like him who would gladly replace the Constitution with the bible or prefer a Christian theocracy as a form of government.
Ideally not.
The only ones I hear I hear complaining about their rights being taken away are Christians.
That's easily accomplished, as there isn't any.
As far as this museum, that's not the upsetting part. It's the influence this guy, and those like him, have over government. He believes social welfare programs shouldn't exist, because they aren't Biblical (neither are toilets, but I bet he uses those). He believes women should be subservient (so Betsy DeVos should resign, obviously). And he has followers in powerful government positions who believe the same, and use their positions to influence policy.
You mean the same rights that others have?
You favor theocracy over secular government??
Symbols aren't evidence.
And other people's opinions matter a lot when they have the potential to influence my life.
What politician has attempted to deny the constitutional religious rights of Christians in the US?
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
Do you look under your bed and in the closet for Bill Ayers and Reverand Wright before you go to sleep?
He seeks to remake the US as a Christian theocracy and he must be blocked. Christians are outraged about Islamic Sharia law but they seek to do the very same with Mosiac law in the US. These religious extremists are the brothers of the Taliban and ISIL because they goals are the same.
Obama did have a close association with Ayers in the early days and was greatly influenced by him. Obama's real father, Frank Marshall Davis, had an even greater influence on him.
And specifically what special rights are they asking for?
@ 2.1.1.2 John Russell wrote:
You immediately replied to him with:
Note the blue text.
My comment started by quoting you with the context supplied (for clarity):
Notice that the words in blue are the context. The words in blue are in standard box brackets [ ] to show they are not part of your quote but rather editorial qualification. The intent was to disambiguate ' that ' for clarity using standard editorial conventions.
Just look up box brackets or follow the link I provided and you will see how this works.
If my clear reading of your words in direct context is not what you meant then explain what you meant instead of getting snarky.
do you mean that in 1999 homosexuals had the legal civil right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, who's gender fell in line with their sexual orientation, and have that marriage legally recognized on all local, state and federal levels just as heterosexuals did ? that's odd... if that were the case then the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't have been needed.....
I did indeed. Your words suggest you favor theocracy over secular government. Given you have not corrected this interpretation I can only assume that is your position. If so, that is a rather extreme position for an individual living in the USA to take. Flies in the face of our Constitution, etc. So, it does matter what you favor given the topic. Why are you equivocating?
(you changed the subject )
Yes, I support a person's right to their own beliefs. And I can also be quite critical of positions such as Drollinger's. You agree that is fair game?
Seems he does have a problem with the separation of church and state.
Sounds like you're suffering from a loss of special rights and privileged status. My condolences, it must be quite difficult for you to cope.
Don't you ever get tired of throwing your indoctrinated propaganda at the wall hoping something sticks. We understand trumps purpose in vilifying the news media to discredit all sources other than the one that supports him blindly. It is psychology that has been used before and his love of Mein Kamp shows through and easily persuaded dolts line up for their cup of Kool Aid. I view the media as all having some bias and a few having a serious need to twist information to suit them. I expect that your lack of critical gaze is blinding you to the simple fact that the truly demonstrated twisters of truth are deep state conservative. Breitbart, Infowars, faux, American thinker the list goes on, do I think that CNN has a left of center bias, yes they do but it is not much of a bias unless of course like trump you subscribe to extreme right mentality then everything is far away from you, especially the truth and accuracy in reporting.
That wouldn't be such news if he weren't tweeting about how his button is bigger than an authoritarian dictators button at the same time. No one would be mentioning how much time he spends on the golf course if Trump hadn't been so critical of Obama golfing. The hypocrisy of he and his followers is stunning. The Steele dossier is mostly verified and the rest is simply unverified but not disproved so many are worried about the implications of having a President beholden to an enemy foreign government who is a democracy in name only. We see that Trump has refused to criticize Russia which adds fuel to the belief that they have something on him, and it's been proven that they helped him win during a national election. His anti-immigrant policy isn't keeping us safer, it's simply making more enemies. He has disrespected virtually every ally, flipped off the global community and extorted them with threats of removing aid if they don't do what he wants. He's empowered China and stepped our country down from being a global leader allowing China to step in to the power vacuum allowing them to set the pace and direction of global markets. Trump has made everyone less safe but the half wits in their hollars love it because they are so poorly educated they don't understand global markets anyway and are frightened little protectionists clutching their bibles and their guns. The stock market was doing great before Trump, it has simply continued to trend up as it had under Obama who helped it hit 19,877 before he left. Unemployment was down to 4.7% under Obama who was handed over 10% unemployment in 2009. Now Trump has continued the trend down to 4.1% and his supporters claim he's some sort of demi-God completely ignoring the gains made by his predecessor. Trumps insults to everyone including those in his own party, his insults for NATO and all of our allies, his embrace of authoritarian dictators like Putin, Erdogan and Duterte, his narcissism, his tacit approval of white nationalism and white supremacists, the disgusting way he has treated and talks about women, this is not just inconsequential potty humor, he is a threat to American democracy and the freedoms real Americans have all held dear.
That one sentence sums up all one needs to know about Christian Nationalism. Emphasis should be on the word "army"
I wonder if the Pope will be visiting the museum when he meets with the President again. Could the Pope possibly be trying to influence political views of politicians?
the Pope says feed the poor. The evangelist in the article says ' welfare is not in the Bible'. Based on what we know about Jesus from the Gospels, which one do you think Jesus would support?
Are not Christians supposed to, "walk the life of Christ"? You are aware that if Christ were alive today he would be considered a far left wing liberal, right?
Well we DO have knowledge of the VALUES Jesus supported, and it wolud not be anything remotely about greed, hate, lies, inequality, judgements and forcing a particular strain of religion on to the masses. There is no way Jesus would support the politics of current conservatives though. Its all fake surface piety attached to politics, using religion to manipulate. They want us to believe the GOP is the party of god and religious righteousness. Which is absolute bollocks.
If you are a Christian then you are to live by the teachings and do as Jesus taught. Just mouthing the words is a hollow faith.
James 3:17
If you claim to be a Christan then you are a obviously follower of Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus are central to the Christian religion and are very important. You cannot reject them without being a hypocrite or a fraud.
Did you forget that I was raised in a very Catholic home and I formally studied theology as part of my philosophy minor?
Most atheists have studied the religion because you cannot claim that something doesn't exist if you haven't studied it. You also don't understand why someone is an atheist.
When will you get it? Never, probably.
You can study till the cows come home, but that won't do it.
Don't care if you were Catholic or Hindu you are not in a position to tell any of us that God and Jesus do not exist for us. It's not like you read a book and say, oh, guess what? I think I will be a Christian 'cause I read this book.
Faith doesn't come in a book. It is something that is felt within your heart, your soul and your mind.
All of your supposed book learning and intellectual crap ain't gonna cut it. Keep reading your books so that when the next religious subject comes up on NT you can use some new material.
You want some good book learning go join the conversation with Calibab and TIG 'cause they have been at it for days and can give you a run for your money. I will check it out and see If you join in with them. Good luck.
I think the question is Texan, do you agree with Mr. Drollinger, whom believes that social welfare programs "have no basis in Scripture," that Christians in government have an obligation to hire only Christians and that women should not be allowed to teach grown men.
Follow up question: If you disagree with Mr.Drollinger and believe he has perverted the teachings of the Bible, do you: A) Support his Museum, B) Support his position to influence powerful political entities.
If you agree with him, well then, no follow up questions needed.
sorry, i jumped to the conclusion he founded the Museum, thanks for pointing that out.
Exercising his right to petition the Gov't , is not the question.
The question is still whether or not you agree with and support his personal position on the matters referenced and therefore support the influence he is gaining from the political players and potential policy. (We can support ones right to influence Gov't but we don't have to support the position they are trying to gain influence for).
I do not support his position, and where he may have a right to petition the gov't with his position, I do not have to support his personal position nor do I or will I support the people that are drawn into his sphere of influence. Therefore,I do not support the influence he is enacting on the political process, through the direct act of not supporting the politicians that flock around him.
If you don't want to answer a direct question then say so, it seems that a lot of people on NT want to perform mental masturbation to avoid the obvious on a topic more than they want to actually have a coherent conversation.
The museum will stand and be visited by those who choose to do so.
I am not in concurrence with everything this man is promoting. Welfare does not necessarily equate to don't feed the poor. Jesus fed the poor. Those who are not religious feed the poor. I feed the poor. So, that is just ridiculous.
Emotions tend to equate individuals that do not support 'welfare' as being anti poor....
I support food stamps, medicaid (especially for children) and childcare assistance .. but monthly cash assistance and housing vouchers, not so much - as an environment is created that traps so many within the system ... they cannot 'afford' to take a good job if offered, as they stand the chance of losing their 'benefits' ................. that job increases the childcare responsibility as well as drops the monthly cash and food stamp assistance - as far as the housing vouchers, I am not overly familiar with how much someone can earn before that voucher is reduced (I do not usually work with individuals that are that deep into the system) I work more with young people (first time parents) that are trying to get their lives moving in a positive direction...
Yet that being said, none of it has to do with feeding the poor, except food stamps (kinda), but even then many 'parents' buy their children junk - rather than take the time to buy a round steak, potatoes, onion and carrots .. cube them, add a bit of brown gravy mix to make a nice lil stew for their family... feeding the poor requires that one give of themselves (help educate them on meal planning as well as shopping skills while on a budget) - not a federal program designed to make ignoring them easier, while telling ones self how great they are for feeding the poor.
Shutting up now mags : )
Hi Colour......good post.
Being poor is a state of mind IMO. Being broke is different. Being poor includes many things. It's tough to get out of it as it consumes all aspects of one's life. Even down to making a stew.
There is so much money in our Country. The owners of this money could do better.
So true B ... yet the Happy Meal is still prob a staple in more than a few households - look how the options were forced to change. (the meal had to at least take on the appearance of being healthier)
No argument from me mags .. wish I had an answer to the problems that plague the US - but alas, I am at a loss. I begrudge NO one their money, yet seeing millionaires on TV asking for donations ... tends to make me shake my head.
It's people like Gates who have most of the available money. They give to charities and have foundations for tax write offs. Why are they focusing on other countries when we need their help here?
I don't understand it.
This "guy" and I say it politely can go straight to hell!
This is the United States of America not the Bible State of America
how odd... why do the religious need a "safe space" ? i was always told that's for those "liberals" that constantly have meltdowns and can't handle reality.... yet this seems to be a "safe space" for the religious...
i would also question that too... why the need for Bible study groups in all 50 state capitals ? will we have religious study groups for all religions in all 50 capitals ?
Not in Little Rock...Christianity is the only religion that matters
When the other religious groups set them up!
do you think it'd be possible for other religious groups to set them up ? do you think it'd be as accepted if other religious groups set them up ? (genuinely curious)
The only other group they would be comfortable with is Jews. If a Muslim attempted to set up Koran studies in every capital designed to spread their faith, these folks would lose their ever loving minds
Of course I do. Maybe, not accepted, but tolerated. Do you think that the Christian groups will wholeheartedly be accepted? Look at the comments regarding the Bible Museum. Does that give you a clue?
quite honestly, i could see that and i agree with your statement.
i don't think they would all be evenly tolerated - take Muslims for example. Do you think that religion would be tolerated or approved of as well as Christians if they started a religious study group in a state capitol ?
Now, i think Christians are generally accepted - they are thought of as the "norm" for this country (how many times have we all heard phrases like "we are a Christian nation" etc ? plus its the largest religion in this country) and are generally approved of (exceptions of course when it comes to topics like secular law, politics, keeping religion separate from law etc) - i don't see anyone passing laws to prevent Christians from going to their houses of worship etc so that tells me that they are generally accepted.
Just because someone doesn't like the museum doesn't mean they hate Christians, does it ? how many times have i heard the conservative religious state they don't hate the LGBT community, they just hate their "sins" (and many of the conservative religious are still trying to reverse same-sex marriage SCOTUS decision - but that's not out of "hate" right ? that's just one example) yet if someone objects to anything dealing with Christians - then its instantly "you hate God ! you are trying to eradicate Christianity !", correct ? (not directed at you personally, just a general question)
So, there will always be those who like and those who don't like. We are different, you know.
Being ok with same sex marriage .....how does that make you a greater person than one who is against same sex marriages? Some people have an issue with it.
We are given choices in this world. You make yours and I will make mine.
Insofar as Muslims? If they want to have religious study groups in state capitols. It won't be easy, but go for it.
I choose my own battles.
very true, i agree
i didn't say they were a greater person or a lesser person - its just an example that because someone may "hate" an aspect of something doesn't mean they "hate" they whole thing, correct ? it's definitely the theory the religious use for same sex marriage, so why can't it be applied to the religious ?
i agree - i think they should be allowed to as well and be as accepted as Christians if Christians are allowed to. But i don't think it would happen in reality.
i understand
as always, thank you for your honest thoughts, i appreciate it 
And, I appreciate yours.
BTW.....in my Church (Presbyterian) we perform same sex marriages. It happened without a big fanfare.
Even tho i think that is the Church's decision to do so or not (the religious ceremony is what i'm referring to, not the secular legal contract) - i think it's wonderful that your Church does
Discussion of the viability of the Christian religion is off topic and not allowed by the red box rules laid out in the first post.
Discussion of the viability of the Christian religion is off topic and not allowed by the red box rules laid out in the first post.
OK, no more about whether Christianity is or is not a true religion.
I will ask Perrie to delete any further.
i never stated it had a positive nor negative connotation connected to the word. I just stated it fits the definition as you provided:
i don't know why you left that definition un-bolded. (please note, i'm not calling that religion nor any religion a "cult")
It shows one person values and supports equal rights while another opposes equal rights for others.
That's their problem. But some try to use that to deny others their rights. So tell me, who is the greater person exactly?
Fair enough. But as long as other peoples choices don't affect anyone else, then there's no rational reason to have an issue with it.
I bet Muslims would meet some resistance to such a proposal, not to mention a watchful eye from someone in the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Good for them. It's nice to see a church/religion be more open minded and accepting. Of course, there are those that would not consider your church to be a "real" church because of their acceptance of LGBT individuals.
The whole issue of SSM should have been without fanfare. only those opposed to it made it into big fanfare.
no one (between Texan and myself) is discussing the viability of the Christian religion - i'm not interested in whether its viable or not for this particular article.
Somehow, after reading your post twice, I don't agree with pretty much anything you said.
If you truly believe you have made the right choice, then, stand by it. And, I will do the same as I have always done.
Usually, issues of any importance affects another person.
Oh, I believe Gay people made a big fanfare! Large sized!
And, this one is great. Do you really think that if my Church was called not a "real" church that it would be taken seriously? There would be a lot of laughing.
P.S. I have two hotels sitting on Boardwalk and Park Place. Come visit!
Mixed-race couples did the same thing when they were allowed the same rights everyone else enjoys.
I know.....how silly of them to be concerned with the denial of their civil rights rather than the "identity politics" that conservatives always whine about.
On the other hand wasn't it those very same conservatives who passed a law which denied civil rights to groups predicated with a particular label?
That is done anymore.
That is not done anymore.
either phrase is correct according to the definition of the word "cult" - and that's my point. I attach no emotions to the word "cult" and am not sensitive. I understand it has a bad connotation associated with it and that some people do use it negatively - but not everyone uses that word in a negative tone to describe religion.
that may be the motivation for some people but not everyone - you can deny that all you want and keep your emotional attachment to the word (which may cross over to a persecution complex if you aren't careful) but the truth is obvious - not everyone has an emotional attachment to that word or to religion itself.
i'm not saying its right or wrong to refer to a religion in that manner - i'm just simply stating that by the definition of the word, religion fits into it, as you supplied the definition yourself.
you are correct - we are not debating if Christianity is a real religion or its viability or anything of that nature, i'm not interested in doing that for this article and it doesn't appear you are either, so we are on the same page in that respect
i understand your viewpoint. Honestly, i would just be surprised they knew that tomatoes are technically a fruit and thought of getting them for me LOL
There is to be no discussion of the viability or truthfulness of religion on this seed.
I tried to be nice about it and warn you and texan, now I will have the whole section removed.
as Texan already pointed out (and so did I)
We are not discussing the viability or truthfulness of religion on this seed - its not a topic we are interested in debating on for this article and have already explicitly stated as such.
The portion of the conversation you are quoting (without context so its given a skewed viewpoint) has nothing to do with the topic of religion's viability or truthfulness (this is where context comes in, you'd have to read the entire conversation and not just "pick-n-choose" what you want)
Ditto for me.
That's quite a naive statement since the GOP platform contains language which seeks to impose Christian sharia laws against LGBT folks, and SCOTUS just denied cert to review an anti-gay law in Mississippi which allows government officials and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. This is an ongoing problem in the US.
Heck....60% of the Mississippi GOP still opposes mixed-race marriage.
Why am I not surprised?
What choice would that be?
Issues like same sex marriage or abortion does not affect you unless it is you who is involved in some way. I can assure you, Jane Smith down the street or across the country having an abortion and marrying her girlfriend has absolutely zero effect on me.
Only after they were denied the right to marry and had to fight for it through the courts.
I'm saying there are those of other religions that would not consider your church "real" because it's tolerant of homosexuality. Many people/religions will oppose homosexuality because of the bible or what they think god says about it and anyone who supports it is wrong. That's what I was saying.
Why don't I save time and just knock the pieces off the board and throw the board off the table now in frustration when I land on either property?
Why state capitals? Hmmmm, could it be because that is where those who decide the course of local (state) politics are?
The fact that this politically connected preacher wants to spread similar bible groups to the 50 state capitals is a rather blatant example of the political nature of his efforts.
Then, lets see how successful he is.
The U.S. House rotunda was used as a Church. I wonder what difference that made, if any?
i could see where it could be viewed as government establishing a religion - especially if no other religions are allowed to do the same thing in state capitals - which is why i would question it. i would want more information on this plan this preacher has and to see if any other religious leaders would do the same thing or not.
well, i'm not so sure:
i mean, it may not be "allowed" per se, but it could be going on it seems...
The Abrahamic taliban are here. Without the turbans.
If this is an ark shouldn't we test it to make sure it can float?
I think he means more like the ark in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
This is merely another doomed effort by some Christians to regain their lost privileges. It will fail, Americans are tired of Christian coercion. Let them waste their money, by voting in Trump they have already wasted their morals. Am I upset about this museum, mildly. Am I scared, no, it's too silly.
Interesting conversation. It encapsulates NT's situation: people talking past each other, making no effort to exchange or understand.
A great many posts in pure Bad Faith .
It's depressing...
Actually it is at least in the sense that the discussion pretends to be about angst against a museum of which very few would care as opposed to the underlying motivation to influence politicians to become soldiers in the war against the secular nature of this country. If a single soldier has no effect as "what's the worry about one person" a suicide bomber would be pointless. There is danger in what is being attempted and complacency is our enemy.
I doubt this has anything to do with the site - it is the nature of social media forums.
This museum and the Ark thingy are just a couple of the many things these "Christians" seem to need to do to prop up their faith. It's both pathetic and bathetic.
CLOSING THIS SEED. IF I DON'T I WILL EVENTUALLY GET CRITICIZED FOR NOT MONITORING IT CLOSELY ENOUGH. I AM NOT GOING TO PICK THROUGH 400 COMMENTS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHICH ONES I HAVENT CHECKED YET.
I DONT THINK ANY SEEDS SHOULD GO PAST 300 COMMENTS OR SO.
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER TRAIN WRECK COMING ALONG ON NT IN A FEW MINUTES FOLKS, IF IT HASN'T ARRIVED ALREADY.
I wanted to take this moment to explain things to you. You can't insult individual member/ members. If it is a direct insult, you get a CoC violation. If you think you are being clever with your insult, you get a skirting. Now look at your next comment:
Yup, that's right. And those are the rules.
No, those were the rules as written by the members long before you came here and by both conservatives and liberals. They understood that once the insults start, the discussion goes. So what you have to decide, is if you are here to have a discussion or insult, becuase that isn't going to change.