Religion, State, and the New Christian Spirit

[Tiassa]

¿Did You Miss It?

Good news, bad news. The bad news is the Christianist assertion that non-Christians should be excluded from government—

State Rep. E. Werner Reschke made the comments in February during an interview with Jason Rapert, the Christian Nationalist who now runs a group called the “National Association of Christian Lawmakers.” Reschke serves as the Oregon “chair” for NACL.

Rapert asked a softball question about why Christians needed to get involved in government, and Reschke’s response was telling for all the wrong reasons. Instead of saying Christians had a spiritual duty to shape society (or some garbage like that), he argued that certain non-Christians were unfit for public life and didn’t deserve to be in positions of power.

He said he admired the supposed Christian faith of the Founding Fathers before segueing into the people who shouldn’t be in government:

… “Those are the type of people that you want in government making tough decisions during tough times,” Reschke continued. “You don’t want a materialist. You don’t want an atheist. You don’t want a Muslim. You want somebody who understands what truth is and understands the nature of man, the nature of government, and the nature of God.”

“If you don’t understand those things, you’re gonna get things wrong,” he concluded. “In Oregon … we have a lot of people who are godless, unfortunately, leading the way and it’s the blind leading the blind.”​

He wasn’t subtle about his feelings. He doesn’t believe atheists or Muslims are fit to hold public office—the former because they have no religion and the latter because they’re the wrong religion.​

—and as Hemant Mehta↱, the Friendly Atheist, breathlessly reminds, "He also felt perfectly at ease saying that—out loud!—to someone like Rapert, probably believing that the only people listening would be Christians who fully agree with them."

The good news, of course, is that we've been through this before, so atheists know what to do. After all, whatever they did, last time, worked so well that it's twenty—(or thirty, or forty)—years later and here we are.

Still, it's nothing new that Christian supremacists speak frankly among themselves; for instance, when Stenzel↗, in 2003, declared that it doesn't matter whether her abstinence advocacy works, we also heard about truth. "Can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth!" She went so far as to say, "I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God."

We might, then, take especial note when Reschke says, "You want somebody who understands what truth is". Think about it in terms of public policy: One might point out the negative health consequences of certain religious pretenses, even to the point of public health hazard—(which we have, in fact, seen before↗)—but that does not matter to these Christians.
____________________

Notes:

Mehta, Hemant. "After saying atheists are unfit for public office, Oregon lawmaker let off the hook". Friendly Atheist. 5 June 2024. FriendlyAtheist.com. 5 June 2024. https://bit.ly/4bN6Bqn

 

[Tiassa]

When the Day Ends with Y

"Satanists are just, they're atheists as well, but they're just more political."

―Amber Rose↱​

So, I was still trying to wrap my head around the part where Oklahoma Superintendent of Education Ryan Walters wrote an op-ed with revisionist David Barton and podcaster Steave Deace asserting that Donald Trump "will end atheism as a state-run religion"↱, and then I stumbled across the bit from RNC speaker Amber Rose explaining that she is an atheist but not a Satanist.

I have no idea what to do with that. While I'm aware of what she's referring to, she is almost startlingly stupid about it.

As to the part where the celebrity who claims to have pegged Kanye West, calls herself an atheist, and praises Satanism for helping women get abortions is a speaker at the Republican National Convention, supporting a man she once called an idiot and standing with Christian nationalists who intend to persecute atheism, yeah, something about politics and strange bedfellows, I guess, but it really does seem its own question.

Meanwhile, it's like, sure, I even have my own joke about atheism and Satanism, but it sure as hell doesn't go like that.

In so many ways, this bodes poorly.
____________________

Notes:

@acnewsitics. "Whatever you do, please don't share this video and let MAGA see their primetime speaker, Amber Rose, calling herself an atheist and saying satanism does a lot of good by helping people get abortions." X. 16 July 2024. X.com. 16 July 2024. status/1813262039659475114

@RightWingWatch. "Days after Ryan Walters tapped several right-wing propagandists to overhaul the state's social studies curriculum, he wrote an op-ed with two of them (David Barton and Steve Deace) urging Christians to vote for Trump because 'he will end atheism as a state-run religion.'" X. 16 July 2024. X.com. 16 July 2024. status/1813254651359248557

 

[Tiassa]

That Was Expected

Follow the bouncing ball:

• RightWingWatch↱, 3 June, 2021: "Right-wing evangelist Lance Wallnau proudly declares himself to be a Christian nationalist and urges Trump to start holding public rallies infused with fundamentalist Christianity."

Transcript says:

People say, oh, Lance, I don't know, saying a Christian nationalist. Yes, I am a Christian nationalist. And I will take the flag that God gave us with His blessed freedom and blessed government and blessed nation, and I will take that flag and I will lead them to the Cross: Give me the flag, and I will carry it all the way to Calvary, and I'll plant it there, with the crosses, and say, "There's the One that gave you the nation; there's, the only One that can save this nation. We've got to give our lives to Jesus."​

• RightWingWatch↱, 13 August, 2024: "Lance Wallnau, who proudly declared himself to be a Christian nationalist, now claims that people who use the term to describe him 'are under a very serious species of mind manipulation which causes them to hear everything you say almost through a paranoid vector.'"

Transcript says:

And they got the weirdest doctrine about what Christians believe, and what Christian nationalism, what they think it is. I think I used the term once, 'cause I'm not an atheist globalist, I happen to be a nationalist, I believe in America; I believe whatever country you're in, you should believe in your country, and you should labor, there, as if God providentially put you there. There's nothing dumb about that, or threatening. These people, they're under a very serious species of mind manipulation which causes them to hear everything you say almost through a paranoid vector.​

So far, pretty straightforward, right? The thing is, "Christian nationalism" did not mean something significantly different in 2021. There are Christian nationalists in Congress, some of whom would say so openly, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14), who said so on the House floor, as well as Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI06) and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA04), who have displayed Christian nationalist flags at their offices.

And, yet, it begins. It's like Trump denying Project 2025, then Project 2025 denying itself and rebranding: Christian nationalists are now trying to distance themselves from Christian nationalism.

• RightWingWatch↱, 13 August 2024: "Trump cultist Eric Metaxas complains about being called a Christian nationalist, saying it's 'an invented term to silence the church': 'It's an evil term, really, because it's trying to silence God's voice in the nation.'"

Transcript says:

You've got people like, uh, you know, Russell Moore and David French throwing around the term, "Christian nationalism", like, "Oooh! if you act on your faith you're being a Christian nationalist," and I think to myself, you mean the way George Washington and Billy Graham, I mean all these heroes that lived out their faith in all kinds of spheres, today, they would be, "Oh, you're a Christian nationalist," and I think that's just an invented term to silence the church. It's an evil term, really, because it's trying to silence God's voice in the nation.​

And all I'm saying is that "Christian nationalism" just hasn't changed that much over, say, the last seventeen years↗, even featuring the same flag Grothman, Johnson, and others would honor, today. And if you want to know the difference between then and now, ask Dan Quayle.

But now they want to take it back, and pretend there is nothing going on. And, honestly, I would expect the lack of integrity to be obvious, but history also reminds it is not necessarily so significant. We were supposed to pretend otherwise, last time, too.

Will it be the same as it ever was?

 

[Tiassa]

Inevitable

It's easy to get caught up in stuff. Amid the unbelievability of it all is a character named Lance Wallnau, a right-wing preacher selling an eponymous educational program. He's not unknown to us, having described of Vice President Harris a "spirit of Jezebel"↗ that is "even more ominous than Hillary" because she is younger and has a "racial component". Wallnau even explained away Harris' debate performance against Donald Trump as "witchcraft" in a "kill box" and called for divine intervention to stop her.

And there is something of a poe effect, so it's easy to get caught up in stuff without realizing that might not matter so much. Wallnau is a sort of American crazy-uncle character, and until his crackpottery becomes important, it is hard to know whether our fascination is caught up in a passing fad. That is to say, of all the jokers saying stupid things, maybe this one won't amount to anything, and is only boosted by controversy. It's easy enough to wonder how far the self-proclaimed Christian nationalist can get playing Peter to himself↗ and accusing people of doing wrong by paying attention to his words.

Anyway, Wallnau is organizing a performance tour for a roster of Christian nationalists, called the "Courage Tour", sponsored by the America First Policy Institute.

And inasmuch as revival tours running through rural Pennsylvania aren't exactly unheard of, there will always be a question of how much attention we should give such crackpots. An example from history is to wonder whether we should have been protesting en masse outside certain Christian churches, a bit over a decade ago, when this one doctor was pitching a fake memoir to the congregations. To the one, I can't police them all, y'know? To the other, it's also true nobody really expected Ben Carson's subsequent villain arc. Imagine a thousand liberals protesting outside a small church with signs reading, "Just say no to blackfacing fake memoirs!" or, "Never invite Vampires or Devils". But it's true, while it would have looked like drawing a lot of attention to a small thing, nobody really could have predicted what actually happened next. And who possibly could have looked their Republican neighbor in the eye and explained the unrevealed significance of saying, "Yeah, he's going to go out of his way to violate the National Prayer Breakfast, and then it all goes to hell."

There was a time when, had we been able to tell people what was coming, nobody would have believed it. Go back to 2013, just before the prayer breakfast, and describe what happens to Ben Carson over the next several years; nobody would believe you. They would think you got caught up in stuff and believed the hype.

Even more so, that period involves seeing other people believing the hype↗, and it's true, nobody wants to be seen falling for it so easily.

So, what do you do about a problem like Lance Wallnau? I mean, so he said some stupid stuff, lots of people do; let's not make a spectacle of it. You know, mandela effect, don't give these things too much oxygen, all that.

In 2023, self-proclaimed Christian nationalist and unabashed Trump cultist Lance Wallnau announced his intention to travel the country ahead of the 2024 elections in order to break the "demonic strongholds" in swing states that have supposedly been preventing Republicans from winning elections. Wallnau"s vision manifested itself in the form of the "Courage Tour," a series of multi-day events during which attendees hear from religious-right activists who mobilize them politically during the daily sessions, while the evening sessions are dedicated to spiritual revival and miracle healings lead by right-wing evangelist and fellow Trump cultist Mario Murillo.

This week, Wallnau and Murillo—both of whom have have been vicious critics of Vice President Kamala Harris, declaring that she is "the devil"s choice" and that her campaign is under "demonic power"—are taking their "Courage Tour" to Pennsylvania, where they will be joined by Trump"s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance.

(Mantlya↱)​

But then there is J.D. Vance, a sitting U.S. Senator from Ohio and Republican nominee for vice president, who will campaign at their event.

It's one thing to not give too much attention to the little things, but this isn't little, anymore.

If the fact of millions of people believing some part of this stuff isn't important in and of itself, its place in the presidential election would seem to demand we pay attention.

This isn't the sort of thing we might ward off with word games, or wagging about the scholarship of two Genesis stories↗. It's not the kind of thing we ought continue to appease with fallacy and crocodile tears↗.

Covering for them out won't stop them; tough-guy pattycakes just aren't up to the task. Sure, there is an argument that the difference, for some, isn't the result but the justification, but even then, people pretend indignance as if accused of impropriety.¹

And this isn't new. It's the same Christian nationalism as last time↗, just reorganized and more direct.

And, sure, it probably isn't thrilling, for those who have been at this for twenty-five years, or some such, to countenance the futility of their wasted time, but, honestly, this is that fated hour and legendary threat, the danger they have struggled against and longed for. It's actually kind of like what that one religious figure said about public displays of piety. If you meet the challenge with that tough logic that demands religious zealots play pattycakes, you will already have your reward. And if people die for the sake of their satisfaction while you play, the zealots will thank you, and happily entertain.
____________________

Notes:

¹ And, sometimes, it's true that they are, though they never respond from a posture of confident justification, but rather resent the implication in the same manner and tone as the guilty.​

Mantyla, Kyle. "J.D. Vance Scheduled to Join Christian Nationalist Courage Tour This Weekend". Right Wing Watch. 26 September 2024. RightWingWatch.org. 28 September 2024. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post...istian-nationalist-courage-tour-this-weekend/

 

[Pinball1970]

Inevitable

It's easy to get caught up in stuff. Amid the unbelievability of it all is a character named Lance Wallnau, a right-wing preacher selling an eponymous educational program. He's not unknown to us, having described of Vice President Harris a "spirit of Jezebel"↗ that is "even more ominous than Hillary" because she is younger and has a "racial component". Wallnau even explained away Harris' debate performance against Donald Trump as "witchcraft" in a "kill box" and called for divine intervention to stop her.

And there is something of a poe effect, so it's easy to get caught up in stuff without realizing that might not matter so much. Wallnau is a sort of American crazy-uncle character, and until his crackpottery becomes important, it is hard to know whether our fascination is caught up in a passing fad. That is to say, of all the jokers saying stupid things, maybe this one won't amount to anything, and is only boosted by controversy. It's easy enough to wonder how far the self-proclaimed Christian nationalist can get playing Peter to himself↗ and accusing people of doing wrong by paying attention to his words.

Anyway, Wallnau is organizing a performance tour for a roster of Christian nationalists, called the "Courage Tour", sponsored by the America First Policy Institute.

And inasmuch as revival tours running through rural Pennsylvania aren't exactly unheard of, there will always be a question of how much attention we should give such crackpots. An example from history is to wonder whether we should have been protesting en masse outside certain Christian churches, a bit over a decade ago, when this one doctor was pitching a fake memoir to the congregations. To the one, I can't police them all, y'know? To the other, it's also true nobody really expected Ben Carson's subsequent villain arc. Imagine a thousand liberals protesting outside a small church with signs reading, "Just say no to blackfacing fake memoirs!" or, "Never invite Vampires or Devils". But it's true, while it would have looked like drawing a lot of attention to a small thing, nobody really could have predicted what actually happened next. And who possibly could have looked their Republican neighbor in the eye and explained the unrevealed significance of saying, "Yeah, he's going to go out of his way to violate the National Prayer Breakfast, and then it all goes to hell."

There was a time when, had we been able to tell people what was coming, nobody would have believed it. Go back to 2013, just before the prayer breakfast, and describe what happens to Ben Carson over the next several years; nobody would believe you. They would think you got caught up in stuff and believed the hype.

Even more so, that period involves seeing other people believing the hype↗, and it's true, nobody wants to be seen falling for it so easily.

So, what do you do about a problem like Lance Wallnau? I mean, so he said some stupid stuff, lots of people do; let's not make a spectacle of it. You know, mandela effect, don't give these things too much oxygen, all that.

In 2023, self-proclaimed Christian nationalist and unabashed Trump cultist Lance Wallnau announced his intention to travel the country ahead of the 2024 elections in order to break the "demonic strongholds" in swing states that have supposedly been preventing Republicans from winning elections. Wallnau"s vision manifested itself in the form of the "Courage Tour," a series of multi-day events during which attendees hear from religious-right activists who mobilize them politically during the daily sessions, while the evening sessions are dedicated to spiritual revival and miracle healings lead by right-wing evangelist and fellow Trump cultist Mario Murillo.​

​

This week, Wallnau and Murillo—both of whom have have been vicious critics of Vice President Kamala Harris, declaring that she is "the devil"s choice" and that her campaign is under "demonic power"—are taking their "Courage Tour" to Pennsylvania, where they will be joined by Trump"s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance.​

​

(Mantlya↱)​

But then there is J.D. Vance, a sitting U.S. Senator from Ohio and Republican nominee for vice president, who will campaign at their event.

It's one thing to not give too much attention to the little things, but this isn't little, anymore.

If the fact of millions of people believing some part of this stuff isn't important in and of itself, its place in the presidential election would seem to demand we pay attention.

This isn't the sort of thing we might ward off with word games, or wagging about the scholarship of two Genesis stories↗. It's not the kind of thing we ought continue to appease with fallacy and crocodile tears↗.

Covering for them out won't stop them; tough-guy pattycakes just aren't up to the task. Sure, there is an argument that the difference, for some, isn't the result but the justification, but even then, people pretend indignance as if accused of impropriety.¹

And this isn't new. It's the same Christian nationalism as last time↗, just reorganized and more direct.

And, sure, it probably isn't thrilling, for those who have been at this for twenty-five years, or some such, to countenance the futility of their wasted time, but, honestly, this is that fated hour and legendary threat, the danger they have struggled against and longed for. It's actually kind of like what that one religious figure said about public displays of piety. If you meet the challenge with that tough logic that demands religious zealots play pattycakes, you will already have your reward. And if people die for the sake of their satisfaction while you play, the zealots will thank you, and happily entertain.
____________________

Notes:

¹ And, sometimes, it's true that they are, though they never respond from a posture of confident justification, but rather resent the implication in the same manner and tone as the guilty.​

Mantyla, Kyle. "J.D. Vance Scheduled to Join Christian Nationalist Courage Tour This Weekend". Right Wing Watch. 26 September 2024. RightWingWatch.org. 28 September 2024. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post...istian-nationalist-courage-tour-this-weekend/

So Oklahoma, Ohio and Texas, teaching the Bible, commandments and as history.
Did you my Texas thread on this?

 

[Tiassa]

So Oklahoma, Ohio and Texas, teaching the Bible, commandments and as history.
Did you my Texas thread on this?

Yeah, and I've even taken a couple tries at responding to it, but have yet to strike the proper tone for wondering what it is you expect to accomplish. Go back and read through everyone's heroic effort in response to RiS. "Scholarship"↗ is a funny word↗ around here.

You've pretty much seen the limit of what the discourse around here does. It's not up to the job. Generally speaking, evangelical atheism isn't, because that was never what it was about. It's one thing to feel good for having someone to talk down to, but a little more effort to actually be useful according to the asserted principles.

Here is a contrast: If we consider↗ that "nothing about rejecting the idea of God that prevents sexist, racism, or knee-jerk irrational tribalism", well, it's just something to keep in mind. Because, consider the contrast of another atheist, one who's been at this petty chase for years, seeking satisfaction in talking down to religious people, but is also known to shield them when his moral wag seeks satisfaction of others.

Two things at once: First, entry-level toughing up just isn't effective; it wasn't that atheism drove religious zeal into remission, but a series of distractions and setbacks disrupted their progress. They never went away, never truly lost, and, indeed, seem to have continued winning the whole time. The other is an appearance of inconsistency that can actually be reconciled, but the reconciliation is invested in what is otherwise considered detrimental. There does persist a question whether the problem is the fact of what is detrimental, or that it is justified by God.

†​

Your thread on Texas is pretty much a social club post, a bunch of atheists commiserating. Take a look at C C's response↗ for contrast, which is straightforward and suggests a kind of discussion people around here generally don't have. And, again, two things. One is that it's a lot more complicated a discussion than the scholarship of reminding there are two creation stories in Genesis. By comparison, it's easier to ask religious people to post their definition of God so an atheist can tell them God doesn't exist. Maybe it isn't particularly useful to ask Christians to submit to judgment per mocking, fallacious, self-satisfying criteria for the sake of an atheist's emotional satisfaction, but, gosh, doing anything more might require people to do some basic scholarship of their own.

And, really, it's one thing if, these days, those folks over there are really bad at doing their own research, but you, or the next atheist, are not them. Right?

So, a couple answers to your Texas thread: The Establishment Clause is always an interesting question, but in this time of godless relativism under God, the one thing American atheists do well, which is file lawsuits to disrupt religion in the public square, isn't as effective as it once was. We'll see how it goes when the Oklahoma Bible question comes up. The Supreme Court is not presently guided by logic, and by comparison, it's not even being a Brit catching up with some of this stuff, since even American atheists don't seem to remember. Like the Bible as history; for some at Sciforums, we've already been through this, with science textbooks. Which ought to at least make clear that no, self-aggrandizing mockery of religion just hasn't accomplished much of use, these last twenty-five years.

†​

Twenty-five years? That's Sciforums. How about forty? Forty-five? Here's a line from three years ago↗:

• If we consider the idea of an historical period in which traditionalist and Christian supremacism wrapped itself in a pretense of literalism that was never actually genuine, perhaps it might stand out that the whole time—that is to say, since even before the Reagan Awakening—literalism had already been ceded as an anti-historical relic of faith. In its way, the period can describe people disputing over the wrong question.​

Biblical scholars↗? Depends on who you grant credibility. I can tell you a story↗ reaching back thirty years, and the thing is, you'll see some of the same names still in circulation. Consider, please, a notorious revisionist historian. Thirty years ago, the white supremacist and Christian nationalist was pledging allegiance to that Christian flag in a church in Florida. More recently, he keeps turning up in Republican Party politics. And, like the pastors and faithful who object to this or that in the schools, consider that David Barton's fellows at the Discovery Institute consider his work embarrassing, misleading, suspicious, and erroneous. Even Thomas Nelson, the Bible publisher, withdrew one of Barton's books from publication.

So, ask yourself: Who needs David Barton to be credible? And, sure, the list is long, but also generally notorious. Mike Johnson, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Roy Moore, the Discovery Institute, some neo-Nazis, and, of course, the homophobia sector. Among others.

Insofar as Americans United called out Barton's shoddy scholarship in 1996, it's also true that industrial-grade trivia for low-budget mockery have failed to hold the line.

What atheists need Barton to be credible? It can seem a strange question, I know, but another way to look at it is that, generally speaking, people should stop saying, "Judeo-Christian". If you can figure that one out, then you can understand the question of who needs the revisionist Barton to be credible. That is: If we take him seriously in certain contexts, we advance his argument. Virtually anything the Christianist pseudoscholar says is unreliable. If he tells you he is not, in fact, actually on fire, triple-check, and wonder why he's telling you.

When disputing with Bartonism, as such, the keys are in history. If you provisionally grant credibility to that manner of false witness in order to dispute the existence and function of God, then you are advancing the false witness for reasons that, generally, don't work out. It is very much akin to how saying "Judeo-Christian" reinforces the Christianist usurpation of, and concomitant presuppositions about, Judaism. And while you might think that seems obscure, presupposition and usurpation are at the heart of conservative Christian disdain for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

(And there is a reason why, when all the fought and fit about the RSV compelled a do-over to assuage the conservatives, the New Revised Standard Version only made things worse.)​

But most people aren't career frauds like Barton. In our moment, what that means is that they might not be so sinister in their false witness. It's important, because what happens, if you know how to take the crackpots seriously↗, they eventually get frustrated and acknowledge↗ they're making it up. And if, for instance, a recent crackpot had lasted long enough for me to have another intersection with him, I might actually have needed to remind him that he makes it up.

To what degree is the mere difference between that crackpot and J.D. Vance that the latter is a sitting U.S. Senator who is running for vice-president? And what profligate appeasement could possibly accommodate such thinking that one boasts of making believe as some manner of testament to legitimacy?

Because, like Barton, the key to answering religious crackpots is in history, not word games and pattycakes. You can argue all day and night that God doesn't exist, but that is only going to entrench the zealous and earn them sympathy among more moderate people of faith. But history is like separating wheat and chaff, like wondering at what point a Christianist might decide to have it out with the Bible. Who will choose David Barton over the Bible, for instance?

But if you pass over the historical question in order to have a fight you cannot win, what do you accomplish? In this manner: Do Biblical scholars treat scripture a certain way? Some of them do, and it's one thing if I don't find them credible, but why would anyone else?

And whether it's schools in Texas or everyday crackpots online, if you need to validate or, at the very least, pass over the actual crackpottery so that you can have it out with God, you're doing it wrong. To wit, go ahead and try to convince someone God doesn't exist; even if you pull it off, maybe he's still beating his wife, but now it's because a man's duty is natural, the law of the jungle, the way things are and always have been. At the very least, though, it's not God's will, so call it a win? Congratulations.

The fact of what is happening happening tells us something about how well we've dealt with the problem in the past. Again↗, yes, it is actually possible to take the discussion away from the Dominionist and often fundamentalist Christian nationalism that has shaped the last thirty years, at least, of American political discourse. It just requires a lot of people, enough to be a political market influence, and learning new tricks can be hard.

 

[LaurieAG]

Which 'state' are you talking about, the USA and their current administration? I agree, especially with regards to the middle east.

 

[Tiassa]

Endgame: It's called "premillennial dispensationalism".​

Which 'state' are you talking about, the USA and their current administration?

In this case, it refers to government in general.

I agree, especially with regards to the middle east.

Actually ... (sigh).

See, rhetorically, it's actually a common twist: 「Do you mean with regard to what I want to complain about? Then I agree!」

Thing is, neither is it entirely off topic: As a matter of religion and state, our mideast policy has to do with Christendom. While Israelis do their Jews for Genocide thing, the American version is Genocide for Jesus. And, yes, that includes the inevitable destruction of Jews in the Holy Land.

But this whole bit where someone ... okay, look, these days, it's just too common. So, don't get me wrong, maybe the word "state" is confusing in this context, but, honestly, I never realized the question of religion and state was, in that way, obscure. Still, though, am I talking about the Biden administration? Only when it comes up.

I mean: Rising Christian nationalism, the Republican politicians it's associated with, the conservative history that has carried it, and even the right-wing opposition to the Biden ("current") administration, but you're wondering if I'm criticizing the Biden ("current") administration, because then you would agree? Honestly, while I probably would not have taken the time to do so, I probably could have guessed. Sorry, it's just a weird thing that stands out when people actually say it to me.

Vis à vis the Biden administration, Joe is something of an older Christian spirit. While his Catholic faith is not without its influence in his handling of the Israeli genocide against Palestine, his failure to react and respond appropriately is one of statecraft.

 

[LaurieAG]

You don't have to be right wing to object to the current US administrations current policy in the middle east. It seems that crooks and imbeciles are attracted to politics these days and both sides have a good mix of both.