If This Is 'Christian Nationalism,' Sign Me Up!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The other day, Politico writer Heidi Przybyla appeared on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes" to talk about the hysteria de jour, "Christian nationalism." Donald Trump, she explained, has surrounded himself with an "extremist element of conservative Christians," who were misrepresenting "so-called natural law" in their attempt to roll back abortion "rights" and other leftist policy preferences. What makes "Christian nationalists" different, she went on, was that they believe "our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority."
As numerous critics have already pointed out, "Christian nationalism" sounds identical to the case for American liberty offered in the Declaration of Independence. Then again, the idea that man has inalienable, universal rights goes back to ancient Greece, at least. The entire American project is contingent on accepting the notion that the state can't give or take our God-given freedoms. It is the best kind of "extremism."
None of this is to say there aren't Christians out there who engage in an unhealthy conflation of politics and faith or harbor theocratic ideas. It is to say that the definition of "Christian nationalism" offered by the people at Politico and MSNBC comports flawlessly with the mindset that makes the United States possible.
Conservatives often chalk up this kind of ignorance about civics to a declining education system. It's not an accident. It's true that Przybyla, a longtime leftist propagandist — and I don't mean a biased reporter; I mean a propagandist whose reporting is often transparently ludicrous — followed up her MSNBC appearance with an embarrassing clarification. But even if Przybyla were fluent in the philosophy of natural rights, one strongly suspects she, like most progressives (and other statists), would be uninterested. It's a political imperative to be uninterested.
If natural rights are truly inalienable, how can the government create a slew of new (positive) "rights" — the right to housing or abortion or health care or free birth control? And how can we limit those who "abuse" free expression, self-defense, and due process if they are up to no good? You know, as Joe Biden likes to say — when speaking about the Second Amendment, never abortion — no right "is absolute."
The most telling part of Przybyla's explanation, for example, was to concede that "natural law" had on occasion actually been used for good. When natural law is used to further "social justice" it is legitimate, but when applied to ideas the left finds objectionable (such as protecting unborn life) it becomes "Christian nationalism." It's almost as if she doesn't comprehend the idea of a neutral principle. It's the kind of thinking that impels the media to put skeptical quotation marks around terms like "religious liberty," but never around "LGBT rights" or "social justice" and so on.
It's also true that the "Christian nationalism" scare is a ginned-up partisan effort to spook non-Christian voters. And, clearly, to some secular Americans, the idea that a non-"earthly authority" can bestow rights on humans sounds nuts. As a nonbeliever myself, I've been asked by Christians many times how I can square my skepticism of the Almighty with a belief in natural rights.
My answer is simple: I choose to.
"This is the bind post-Christian America finds itself in," tweeted historian Tom Holland. "It can no longer appeal to a Creator as the author of its citizens' rights, so [he] has to pretend that these rights somehow have an inherent existence: a notion requiring no less of a leap of faith than does belief in God."
No less but no more. Just as an atheist or agnostic or irreligious secular American accepts that it's wrong to steal and murder and cheat, they can accept that man has an inherent right to speak freely and the right to defend himself, his family, and his property. History, experience, and an innate sense of the world tell me that such rights benefit individuals as well as mankind. It is rational.
The liberties borne out of thousands of years of tradition are more vital than the vagaries of democracy or the diktats of the state. That's clear to me. We still debate the extent of rights, obviously. I don't need a Ph.D. in philosophy, however, to understand that preserving life or expression are self-evident universal rights in a way that compelling taxpayers to pay for your "reproductive justice" is not.
John Locke, as far as I understand it, argued as much, though he believed that the decree of God made all of it binding. Which is why, even though I don't believe my rights were handed down by a superbeing, I act like they are. It's really the only way for the Constitution to work.
The question is: How can a contemporary leftist who treats the state as the source of all decency- a tool of compulsion that can make the world "fair" — accept that mankind has been bequeathed a set of individual liberties by God, regardless of race or class or political disposition? I'm not sure they can anymore.
Tags
Who is online
533 visitors
They hate the Constitution. It has already been violated, so what's the difference?
Who is this "they" that you keep railing against?
xtian nationalists = first wave of the russian insurgency
Exactly!
As we well remember, their dear leader trump called for the termination of "all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". Trump's hatred of the Constitution is palpable and real, just like his hatred for all of the other institutions of American life.
There is no such thing as property rights without a government to enforce them
that may make some people sad but it's completely true
You ever been to Texas JR? I don't know very many people around here that need a government to enforce their property rights...
Let's say you build a nice house out in the middle of nowhere but it's a nice big house and you have farmland and you have some cattle or whatever
but there is no government that verifies that this land belongs to you
one day a band of marauding raiders shows up on your land and the leader of that group says "I'll give you one hour to get out of here this is my house now and my land so you just go"
without government he's not in the wrong. Without government the world is dog eat dog and you no more own that land than anyone else does
How ridiculous!
No, he is.
And with it even...
Yes, it is ridiculous to think that your rights as a human being exist only because of government .
Every human being has their own position on what should be human rights — rights based on mere existence.
Consider the most basic right: the right to life. The right to live in this world is something that most people would agree on. What effects the right to live? When that right is violated (e.g. someone or something kills you) who determines that this is wrong? Who, in anticipation of a potential violation of a right, might take measures to protect the right?
Rights exist because groups of people (from family up to society itself) agree on the rights and make same real.
You may believe that you have the right to occupy any land on the planet — that everything on planet Earth is available to all human beings. But your belief is meaningless without agreement from the groups of people who would effect or deny your perceived right.
There is no known authority other than human beings that defines human rights and acts to effect those rights.
Sure, just as every human being has their own level of conviction for defending those rights.
I call them kin and maybe a few friends.
It all starts with the individual.
Okay, so you take issue with the idea of God given rights? What rights do you feel like you have as a human being?
Until we have decent evidence that there is a sentient entity who grants rights, yes I am not persuaded by that claim
Irrelevant. We all share some basic notions that we believe should be rights and we also have substantial disagreement. My point was that there is no definitive set of rights but rather contextual rights established by nations, societies, cultures, ..., down to the family and the individual.
Not at all. Definitive? According to who?
Figure it out Greg. What would be the logical source for a definitive set of human rights?
Is there a definitive set of human rights in your opinion?
I see no evidence of a sentient entity that could produce the definitive set of human rights. Thus there is no evidence that such a set exists.
Do you have evidence to offer?
Evidence of what? Human rights? Are you saying that you don't think basic rights exist unless agreed upon by a majority?
Read my posts, Greg. I no longer am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your game of faux obtuseness does not interest me.
Okay. Your game of obfuscation doesn't interest me. Have a good evening.
"The liberties borne out of thousands of years of tradition are more vital than the vagaries of democracy or the diktats of the state."
Even our primate cousins, the chimps, have territorial instincts. So have all civilizations and groups worldwide since the dawn of history. They had no governments to enforce their inherent right to have property and possessions. So they went into battle to protect themselves and what belongs to them
So your ideal world would be groups constantly fighting over property ownership. - what a paradise
“groups constantly fighting over property ownership. - what a paradise
Isn’t that what the gangs in chicago do?
Look around, it seems we a re already there.
Greg, what is being shared with you is about COMMUNITY. There are rules, in community/ies set in place to aid in keeping the peace. If you want your property boundaries to be RESPECTED by the force of others. . .we establish courts, laws, officials, enforcers of laws, and surround ourselves with them. It is the respect (and fear) of community - even when remote and distant that keeps your fellow citizens in check
Than you believe humans have no rights the government can't take away from them? If the government gave them to you, they can take them right back and you have no reason to complain.
Governments (at least legitimate ones) exist by the consent of the governed to protect those inalienable rights humans have. Once a government ailentates those rights, than it is not legitimate and is not owed any loyalty.
Nice strawman. Societies exist because of a degree of buy-in from the members. Once a critical mass of members do not accept the tenets of a society the society changes in some way. This change can be gradual or rapid. Right now, the Xtian nationalists are in control (in some areas) and attempt to tip the scales backwards by removing the rights of human beings that have been granted and adjudicated.
Yet this is exactly what Xtian Nationalists are attempting to do.
Do you not understand the argument? If you believe only a government can you give you rights, you have no reason to complain when they are taken away because they only exist at the government's discretion.
ng the rights of human beings that have been granted and adjudicated
Who grants rights to human beings?
if they are natural rights why would anyone or anything have to grant them it would just exist
I don't object to the concept of God-given rights I'm just saying that without government many of these rights are unenforceable that's just common sense
Thomas said rights have been granted to human beings. I was curious who he thinks granted them.
without government many of these rights are unenforceable that's just common sense
Yes, to protect those rights is the primary reason for a government's existence and the measure of whether a government is legitimate or not. .
So the government is legitimate as long as it agrees with your list of rights but if it has another list of rights or doesn't agree with your list of rights then it's not legitimate ?
Why don't women have a natural right to terminate their pregnancy ?
I understand principled arguments and de facto situations. The statement, "All human beings have equal human rights," is a lofty and principled statement that has yet to be realized. There are many actual, factual, and current exceptions to this statement.
Incorrect. Rights are sanctioned by the Constitution and the Government enforces the laws around these rights. Therefore, the government is the guarantor of said rights. A function of the government to guarantee these rights is foundational to the concept of government as it exists in the USA. It is not necessarily foundational in other nations.
Other human beings grant rights via social contract, ie. the government and the CotUS.
Before the Civil War, what were the rights afforded to African Americans? What rights do they have now? How exactly did this change?
Before the early 20th Century, what rights were afforded to women? What rights do they have now? How exactly did this change?
While it may be aspirational to say that all humans are granted basic human rights by virtue of being alive, the reality falls far short of this goal.
That's the point of the Declaration of Indepence.
women have a natural right to terminate their pregnancy ?
Where was it listed as one? Have I missed that in Locke? Considering abortion was punished at common law pretty much as far back as records go, you'd think someone would have mentioned it before 1970.
That's a lie.
It has not been seen as a right, but it also has not been always a wrong
Abortion wasn't thought of as much in the US until after the Civil War when male Catholic doctors started demanding they take control of women health. And they used abortion as their wedge into taking control.
Yes, that's the point of a just government. That's neither here nor there to the discussion.
ther human beings grant rights via social contract, ie. the government and the CotUS.
Great. We are in agreement. A government that can create rights can take them away since those rights are merely their creation and have no existence outside the government's deining to allow you to possess them at its discretion.
Before the Civil War, what were the rights afforded to African Americans?
Very few,
ow exactly did this change?
Because believers in natural law, like Lincoln, used the moral force of natural law to convince the north to fight a war in order to make the government more in line with the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
That's the point. Government, at least good government, is the attempt to bring government in line with the principles of natural law, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. It is not magic. But it is the rationale for why slavery is wrong, or woman should have the vote. Otherwise, it's just power all the way down. Its why slavery has existed throughout history and throughout the globe and it was the western belief in natural law and the arguments based upon it that led to its suppression ( at least in most parts of the globe).
Lol.Abortion was punished at common law in England when Catholics were being killed as heretics and came with the Protestant founders to America. The idea that Catholic doctors in the middle of the 19th century had that kind of power is Protocols of the Elders of Zion type [shit.deleted]
Yes, thanks for proving my point. Abortion was regulated by the state and there was no "right" to one.
From the 13th century to the early 19th century induced abortion was legal under English common law, before the onset of quickening at 15 to 18 weeks gestation.
so natural rights have no meaning other than the meaning that is construed from governing documents
if Congress passes a law saying that women have a right to an abortion will that mean they have a natural right to an abortion
Again, thanks for proving my point. There was no right to an abortion. The government could and did punish it with different standards. No one ever claimed it was a right. In fact, the law considered abortion before quickening a misprision that couldn't be punished because of the difficulty of proof.
I'm glad we all agree England has regulated abortion for almost a thousand years without anyone ever considering it a "right."
No. I've asked you again to show where anyone considered abortion a natural right, even though it was in fact regulated by law. If there was widespread belief in 1500 that women had a natural right to an abortion and argued against punishing them you'd have something to start with.
saying that women have a right to an abortion will that mean they have a natural right to an abortio
first off, I don't think you understand what a right is. If Congress passes a law saying the speed limit is 75 it doesn't create a "right" to drive that fast. If it changes it two years later to 55 you have no ability to claim your rights are being infringed because what was legal last week (driving at 75) is no longer legal. Congress cannot create a right, let alone a natural one.
If Congress allows abortion until birth tomorrow, women can have abortions until birth unless a future Congress imposes a new standard. Same as anything else Congress legislates.
You - @ 2.3.12 Sean Treacy abortion was punished at common law in England
Me - @ 2.3.14 evilone induced abortion was legal under English common law
You - @ 2.3.16 Sean Treacy thanks for proving my point. There was no right to an abortion.
WFT???!!!
That's called moving the goalposts again, Sean.
Hmmm.... I have issue with this too. Was it not the 1789 Continental Congress that drafted our Bill of Rights in Federal Hall in NYC?
Not at all. They all make the same point. If abortion was a "right" it would not have been prohibited and punished for almost a thousand years without any claiming such a right existed. That it was regulated and criminally punished literally proves the opposite. If anyone believed an actual right existed until recently , someone, somewhere would have said it can't be regulated because women have a right to an abortion.
You got me. Congress plays a role in passing Amendments and can create a right by drafting an amendment that is ratified. It does not create a right by passing a law.
Flag was dismissed on 2.3.2 as it was responded to by addressed member at 2.3.6.
And I pointed out is wasn't always punished for almost a thousand years. You seem to think the word "right" has some special significant meaning other words don't. All it boils down to are definitions in the social contract. Laws are more easily amended than Rights. Rights are not supernatural constructs. The modern age has moved beyond the "divine right of kings" to the "rights of the individual".
When people speak of the "right to an abortion", what they really mean is the "right to self autonomy" and the "right to privacy". If you don't believe these ideals mean anything, whether codified into the social contract by right, law or precedent, then you are ceding that power to the State. What conservatives once defined as a "Nanny State".
I started off taking issue with this statement to JR from you:
The government did not grant the right, the government recognized that something was a right after society said, "Hey, somebody is denying me the ability to X," so the government gauranteed it as a result of the social contract.
The idea that rights are grantable or revokable at whim is preposterous. We are supposed to have a whole slew of rights that are not enumerated. These rights were part of the debate around the original Bill of Rights. Some were concerned that, by the spelling out of a certain portion of our rights, citizens would be denied other rights by virtue of their not being listed. To look at the debates of today, it would seem that this denial of rights is both the past and present case.
Further, the idea that the citizenry should lay down and accept whatever they are "given" as rights ignores history leading up to this point in time. People have been agitating for their rights since the dawn of civilization, and to have them "granted" and then taken away is not the function of government. Once again, government does not declare rights, the people do. Government is the tool for the guarantee of those rights. Looking at the people, xtian nationalists are attempting to deny the rights of certain people simply because they are those people.
What is Natural Law? I thought you just got done saying there is no inherent natural law (i.e. natural rights). All law is a construction of human beings. There is nothing natural about it at all. The only way that rights got recognized is by people standing up to be counted ...and shot, and murdered and lynched. When we take away those rights, as we can see xtian nationalists attempting to do right now, it is little wonder that there is grumbling from those who you are attempting to remove rights from.
It's amazing to see the left now literally describe support of the Declaration of Independence as Christian extremism. It's like they are doing PR work for christian extremism.
If you like puppy dogs, ice cream or a refreshing drink on a hot day, you are Christian Extremist!
Is America the only country that God bestowed these rights on?
Is every human an American?
We could ask is every American a human?
So, it's good to know according to you that he did bestow these rights on all humans, is that correct?
So God only cares about a select group of people? If so, what a sad impotent little deity.
Are you familiar with the declaration of independence? This is pretty basic stuff.
What a sad comment. Are you that unfamiliar with the concepts being discussed that you think that's a point?
I am familiar with your attempts to revise history.
By all means, point to the history I'm revising. What passage of Locke, Aristotle, Cicero or even the Declaration of Indepence are you relying on for your belief that natural law means "God only cares about a select group of people."
You've been twisting the meaning of the Natural Rights and what Locke believed since I've known you. Locke does quote god given rights, but he doesn't mean literally from God. The European intellectual movement was born from rebellion of Church rule. It was the Humanism of it's day. Totally the opposite what Christian Nationalist are trying to trick the gullible into today. Furthermore, Deism and Christianity conflicted for over 200 years. The tenants of Deism were skepticism, atheism, and materialism.
The irony here is off the charts. Imagine thinking anything you wrote conflicts with my point. To blatantly ignore my reference to Aristotle and Cicero and focusing only on Locke is straw manning of the highest order.
So where did Locke, Cicero or Aristotle claim that God only cares about a select group of people?
Yes, I am, thank you for asking and now let me quote this from the D o I...
According to this passage from the Declaration of Independence, he didn't bestow these rights on everyone, only on the white folks in what is now the US. It seems that the ''merciless Indian Savages'' received no rights from God and according to the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' and Papal Bulls including “Inter Caetera,” he encouraged the conquering, enslavement, and death of the ''Savages'' that is Pope Alexander VI and if I understand it the Pope represents God on earth and is God's messenger.
So, what we have is a God that only felt that white folks were entitled to ''human rights''. On the other hand being conquered, enslaved, or killed was a human right of the supporters of the D o I? See where I'm going with this, Sean. This human rights thing from God is pretty much BS or he is one very evil entity.
You're a funny guy.
I bow to the master strawman builder...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I didn't run away, you moved the goalposts.
Correct. It is the introduction of a social contract between the governed and those who would govern. It is not an ordained religious tract nor was it handed down to the Founding Father by a burning bush.
[deleted]
My argument has always been the same. You started with a ridiculous claim and have done nothing but backtrack and deflect.
I seriously doubt that many people would consider that sentence to only pertain to the would be U.S. citizens who were colonists at the time of the writing.
I would think that rights granted by the creator would pertain to everyone everywhere on earth
Let's get this straight then. Americans do not get their rights by supernatural decree.
I'm not arguing that. In fact, I'm arguing the opposite.
The founders are saying "we are humans. We have these inalienable rights that the King is violating. We are joining together to form a new government to protect those rights among those we govern."
The founders are not trying to secure those rights for the world by creating a world government. They are setting up a government that will protect those rights for those who are rebelling against George III. Non Americans are recognized as having rights as humans under that clause, but the founders are making no claim to be able to secure those rights for them.
Yes, but we were securing them only in this country.
Thank you so much, let's have a go at it.
And your comment said All men were created equal..We know that is a lie, so either God is a liar or the founders are. Thank you for pointing that out.
The reason I said in what is now the US is to set the boundaries that it did not include the world but specifically what is now the US.
Whoa, so it wasn't for Indians even though there were millions of us here since the beginning and it was our country. Thank you again for pointing out that the D o I was racist as were the founders and I guess God is too. So God restricted human rights to whites living in what is now the US, that is fricken amazing. Billions of people in the world and the US is the only one with human rights...
They never existed before!! Wow, do you have proof of that? Life was not nearly as cheap on his continent inhabited by ''Savages'' as it was in Europe inhabited by inventor (s) of human rights. We will have to overlook the hundreds of wars that killed an enormous number of Europeans, Kings, and Royal Families incest, plundering, cast systems et al.
Now if there were no human rights before the DoI what in the world was God doing for the thousands of years of mankind?
LOL, I didn't make anything up and when it comes to prejudices you would be the master of that.
Locke’s thoughts on God:
Which men aren't equal in your mind?
so either God is a liar or the founders are
what did god lie about? Who claimed he even said anything on this topic?
wasn't for Indians even though there were millions of us here since the beginning and it was our country. \
Um. No shit. Were Indians sovereign nations or American citizens?
Life was not nearly as cheap on his continent inhabited by ''Savages'' as it was in Europe inhabited by inventor (s) of human rights
[Deleted]
if there were no human rights before the DoI what in the world was God doing for the thousands of years of mankind?
[Deleted] Why would you believe any of this has anything to do with God's involvement or lack thereof with men's affairs?
Almost every country has belonged to another at some point in history. This whole "our country first" thing is old news and not relevant.
Especially because native americans never viewed themselves as one people or nation occupying the land. It was a cycle of war and ethnic cleansing of the losing tribes that never really stopped until America controlled the land.
Well do you want to start with the young US...It would be Indians, blacks and most any minority after.
You did, the question is do our rights come from God. You are in the affirmative so how did he get that premise to the Founders, email, letter, thunder from the heavens, tablets of stone?
Yes, they were sovereign nations and the rest of that comment is hilarious. Of course we were not American Citizens, there was no America at the time.
Oh oh, try not to get violations, what would God think of you? Be civil.
Oh, no another delete, time for you to head for the confessional. To answer the remainder of your questions, DUH because that is the path you've been pushing.
You have a wonderful evening.
Cheers
Oh we've always viewed ourselves as one people but each is its own Nation, just as it is today according to the US.
LOL, now that is an ignorant comment, especially coming from people who committed genocide against natives....Now you just hurry up and tell me it wasn't genocide, because, well just because.
So you're saying that we are the same as all other countries that were conquered? Sorry, but that's dead wrong.
Cheers
Nope, never said that at all.
Nope, what is dead wrong is saying that is what I said.
Toodles.
A ? signifies a question as shown at the end of the sentence in my comment. A simple yes or no would have been sufficient.
There was nothing in my comment to lead you to ask such a question. A simple reading of what I wrote would have sufficed instead of poorly attempting to twist what I did write.
I don't play that game of pretending you wrote something other than what you did write and don't appreciate it when others try to run that game on me. I ain't having it.
Of course, there was and there was no attempt to twist your words thus the question mark, but if that is your conclusion so be it, wrong as it is.
You certainly are having a problem with a question, and running a game on you, LOL now that funny and ''I ain't having it'' well damn good for you, stomp your foot and demand justice.
I suggest you read what I did write if that is what you thought I wrote, because the actual words don't support that theory as wrong as it is.
No, my problem is someone thinking I wrote something other than what my words say.
it is a childish game to pretend people write one thing when they didn't and then try to deny that's the game they're playing.
Flags on 4.1.28 & 4.1.31 were dismissed as addressed member responded directly below them.
Whte MEN - women were excluded from rights and had to fight for them and still do.
After the Civil War, the White Men decided the Black Men had the right to vote and various other rights that were still being denied to ALL women.
Good point, and I'll add that Indians couldn't vote, hell we weren't even citizens until 1924 and the last state that allowed us to vote was 1962.
It’s a shame that white men in the 18th century didn’t have today’s perspective.
It was actually white male landowners.
These are the facts that destroy the propaganda that the US ever was and is "the land of the free".
There are constant battles by one group or another to limit another group's freedoms. It is a constant Game of Thrones waged largely by sadistic, narcissistic men who would be king of all they survey to gratify themselves at the expense of others. People are just objects to be used, abused and discarded at their pleasure. This is one of the reasons that people do not bother to vote. Whoever gets in office works to enrich themselves and maybe enacts a few token measures that seem to benefit one group at the expense of another group to keep the political game alive.
The major industry of the US is endless war instead of using that money to build infrastructure, support public education, fund physical and mental health access and everything else that would benefit the lives of people instead of destroy them.
What is a shame is that Indians treated women with more respect as equals before the White Men taught them the error of their ways.
It sounds to me like "I am a Roman citizen, and therefore I have inalienable rights" (which others don't have). Well, you know that the Roman Empire did not last forever.
I again see how we on NT take arguments to the level of absurdity.
Any historical account of the origins of American slavery and genocide of indigenous people will never ever satisfy our moral conscience of today- fools errand. Thinking historically is not about making moral judgments about the past, that’s easy and isn’t useful. What builds on understanding is why people in the past acted as they did.
Greed and the lust for power, which are intimately intertwined.
Yea, those impulses are gone away.
It didn't satisfy the moral conscience of many from that time period either.
The same reason that they act that way today, they are not considered equal by many, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
It satisfied a great majority in the 18th Century.
whose history? The idea that only the white Europeans can give a true history of what happened in North America is nonsense. The whites even had a name for taking Indian land - manifest destiny
Who wrote such nonsense?
Wasn’t that a mid-19th century term long after the establishment of slavery here and the destruction of the native peoples?
The concept of Manifest Destiny had a profound and often devastating impact on Native American tribes during the westward expansion of the United States. Let’s delve into the consequences:
Land Dispossession :
Armed Conflict :
Exposure to Diseases :
Cultural Impact :
In summary, Manifest Destiny led to land dispossession, conflict, disease, and cultural upheaval for Native American tribes. It remains a complex and painful chapter in American history. 🌿
No doubt, but the die had already been cast.