That's the cause of this mess. It's only going to get worse until it is rejected and repudiated.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/name-and-shame-white-christian-nationalism-the-ideology-behind-jan-6?ref=home

"Christian nationalism believes in the enduring and dangerous “deep story” that America is a special nation divinely favored by God and entrusted to white Christians as its sovereign protectors, in order to implement and spread the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. These “Christian” values and morals are allegedly under active threat and assault by “invaders”—who presently include feminists, LGBTQ+, Jews, people of color, Muslims, immigrants, and essentially anyone who opposes their proposed theocratic state.

In this worldview, America can only be made “great” again if we return to its previous natural order, in which white Christian patriarchy reigned supreme. Violence, as blessed and rationalized by a militarized reading of the Gospel and a belief in a warrior Jesus, is justified to “take back” the country by any means necessary.

In 2013 retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin—a right-wing white Christian nationalist—said he believed Jesus will return armed with an AR-15, the weapon of mass destruction responsible for numerous school shootings and murdered children. In 2022, Daniel Defense, the company which manufactured the AR-15 rifle the Uvalde shooter used, posted a since-deleted photo showing a child holding a rifle with the Bible verse: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

"According to Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, “the strength of the movement is in its dense organizational infrastructure: a closely interconnected network of right-wing policy groups, legal advocacy organizations, legislative initiatives, sophisticated data operations, networking groups, leadership training initiatives, and media and messaging platforms, all working together for common political aims.”"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 07:17PM by anybody.

Who would jesus shoot ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 07:58PM by Dave the Atheist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who would jesus shoot ?


Who wouldn’t Jesus shoot?

1 SAMUEL 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Revelation 2:23
“I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.’” Deuteronomy 21:18–21

The article has some logical leaps.

Yes, there are Christians who happen to be insane.

But:

One mentally ill Christian killed people.
Therefore, all Christians are mentally ill and dangerous.

Poor logic.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

The Christian right has taken over the supreme court. From chants of "Jews will not replace us" to hostility to black people and their voting rights, the movement is assuredly racist. And now the movement's agents have overruled abortion rights, an issue that the Christian right insisted on as a litmus test for Trump nominees; has weakened the separation between church and state; and is taking aim at other secular barriers to the establishment of religion.

So while not all Christian nationalists are racist, many if not most are. Not all of them want to break down the barriers between church and state, but most of them do. And the pro-life movement is virtually universal among members of that form of Christianity.

Note my use of the term "form of Christianity." That is intended to acknowledge that there are vast swathes of Christianity that are not White Christian Nationalists. We have many of the "reasonable," or should I say "Christian," Christians on this website. But we also have the firebrand theologically motivated cultural Christians that are tearing up the constitution and our freedoms.

I think the article put the issue quite fairly. The problem is White Christian Nationalism, which represents a very prominent and disproportionately influential body of activists. Your point is that there are a lot of Christians who are not that way, and that is a given. But when an author focuses on a specific, identified subset of Christianity that behaves more or less as he says, the logic is solid.

There’s also hate against Asians, indigenous people ( Americans)
and gender / sexual preference minorities and Latinos - Hispanics in addition to hatred against African Americans

They are all against what you stand for?

OPie is right ~


nobody will be safe until all white christian nationalists are put into re-evaluation camps ~


where they can be evaluated as to they potential for re-education, labor or elimination ~


first they must be isolated ~


them dis-armed ~


an then ~


transported to camps provided by the government ~


where legally sanctioned evaluations can be performed ~


without the interference of intolerant outside agitators ~


for they own protection ~


an the greater good ~

Is ziller bucking for camp counselor yet again?

in b 4 ~ what does this have to do with the OP?

in b 4 ~ sometimes ziller acts like El Gato

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPie is right ~
>
>
> nobody will be safe until all white christian
> nationalists are put into re-evaluation camps ~
>
>
> where they can be evaluated as to they potential
> for re-education, labor or elimination ~
>
>
> first they must be isolated ~
>
>
> them dis-armed ~
>
>
> an then ~
>
>
> transported to camps provided by the government ~
>
>
> where legally sanctioned evaluations can be
> performed ~
>
>
> without the interference of intolerant outside
> agitators ~
>
>
> for they own protection ~
>
>
> an the greater good ~


Here's a scene from the classic comedy "I'm Gonna Get You, Sucka!" (1988). Antonio Fargas finds out the hard way that he's out of style and the 1970s are no longer in fashion:

https://youtu.be/BWNQTqMkezc


Ziller, I don't know if you know anyone born after 1999, but white nationalism, enforced cisgendered heterosexuality, and "christian" exclusionism are no longer acceptable to them. The same is true for people born after 1980. Someone else has already pointed out how LD$, Inc. is struggling to deal with LGBTQIA+ issues and people who are transitioning now. That's why people who think racism and religious domination are "just the way things should be" are scared out of their minds. They know their own children and grandchildren reject what they think of as "normal" –— AND THEY KNOW THAT WAY OF THINKING WILL DIE WITH THEM.

Take a look at the kids in this video, Ziller. Take a good hard look. The majority of them are white. They are pulling down the statue, not resurrected 1960s black power radicals of your imagination:

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article217035815.html

It's going to be a different world, Ziller. It's up to you to decide if you want to be part of it.

(Captain America gives his shield to Falcon)
https://youtu.be/4hcZSzV7h_E


The world has changed, Ziller.

That way of thinking is simply no longer acceptable and is just of style :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2022 06:20AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
That's why people who think
> racism and religious domination are "just the way
> things should be" are scared out of their minds.
> They know their own children and grandchildren
> reject what they think of as "normal" –— AND
> THEY KNOW THAT WAY OF THINKING WILL DIE WITH THEM.


You’re the one scared out of your mind.

>
>
> Take a look at the kids in this video, Ziller.
> Take a good hard look. The majority of them are
> white. They are pulling down the statue, not
> resurrected 1960s black power radicals of your
> imagination:


“The majority of them are white” is like attributing other crimes to specific races. YOUR racism is showing again, anybody.


I suspect you are NOT an exmormon, jut a ranting nut who found a forum to rant on.

And your thread’s title: “We Must Denounce White Christian Nationalism NOW —— Once And For All” !!!!!! Holy shit, Adolf!

I have no idea why admin goes along with this racist, political crap. This crap could only scare off people who are looking for help getting out of the LDS church.

Kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> And your thread’s title: “We Must Denounce
> White Christian Nationalism NOW —— Once And
> For All” !!!!!! Holy shit, Adolf!
>
> I have no idea why admin goes along with this
> racist, political crap. This crap could only
> scare off people who are looking for help getting
> out of the LDS church.


Kathleen, you are proving my point.

Your response is very interesting because it tells me that you
and I see and hear the same things, but yet we react to them in very, very different ways.

How is denouncing racism -- and faith-based hate -- racist?

Please explain this.

Did I say "all" of any group?


If you actually paid attention, I said "white christian nationalism" and gave specific, concrete examples of what it was.


Here's another example: the infamous 1949 First Presidency Statement:

https://mit.irr.org/1949-official-mormon-statement-on-blacks-and-priesthood


"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."


What do you think this is? I'm listening.


Here's a more recent example:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/06/29/mormon-land-divinely-inspired/



‘Mormon Land’: A ‘divinely inspired’ Constitution — where such talk began and why it matters now
Amid the Jan. 6 hearings, a religious scholar discusses why early Latter-day Saints put so much faith in the nation’s founding document and how their views — from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson to Dallin H. Oaks — have evolved.



Rusty Bowers, a Latter-day Saint who serves as speaker of the Arizona House, recently captured the attention of the nation when he testified before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol.

The Republican officeholder steadfastly and sometimes emotionally told lawmakers of the intense pressure he received from Donald Trump and his allies to appoint alternate electors in a bid to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election.

Bowers refused. Why? One reason he cited was his faith’s teaching that the U.S. Constitution is “divinely inspired” and that he was determined to uphold his oath to remain true to its principles.

Where and when did this belief in the nation’s founding document begin? And what are the implications when current constitutional questions arise?



I've also tried to explain in detail how these attitudes are the basis for the current situation our nation is dealing with and how it is leading a vocal minority -- about 1/3 of the US population -- to abandon democracy and support fascism out of fear.


Be honest with yourself.


Is this right or wrong?


Is it wrong to point out how *some* people (mostly white, older, and rural) are using religion as a means to an end -- because they can't deal with living in the 21st Century?


Does it make any sense to escape living in a Mormon theocracy to live in one nationwide?


Have you been asleep for the last fifteen years?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2022 01:14PM by anybody.

katheen knows whats up ~



done & done does as well ~

Anybody, you post the most racist, bigoted crap I have come across.

I'm with Kathleen. Is this really what has become of my beloved RFM? Geezz Louise!

Find a real political platform to post on and leave us alone.

Anybody. You clearly have little if anything do to do with Mormonism. Your few attempts to tie any of your racist rants to Mormonism are obviously desperation to hang onto any type of soap box at all.

You are the equivalent of the "small endowed white men" you cite as proof of your small sampled opinions.

I'm never going to be comfortable with bigotry, so I call it out when I see it.


You are proving my point.


There's a sharp, clear line between people who grew up before and after 1980-1990.


You and I see the same things -- and yet react to them in very, very different ways.



Open your eyes and think.



P.S. You wrongly interpreted what I said.

A lot of guys might want to walk around carrying guns for all sorts of reasons -- including an inferiority complex of their own making that only exists in their heads and which does not exist in fact -- but given the current reality and social situation that we live in, it's something that only white males can get away with. I've also given evidence how guns and religion have become a toxic mix.


You thought I meant "all white guys have small ****" instead.

Wrong.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2022 02:49PM by anybody.

Anybody, nice attempt backpedaling on your "small endowed white men" comment.

You can't backpedal on your ignorance and immaturity.

Not going to argue anymore, it's not worth it.

I'm really confused. Why is it considered racist to call out white Christian nationalism? White Christian nationalism is a real thing. And it's racist, it's patriarchal/anti gender equality, anti LGBTQ, theocratic and against liberal democracy. It's bad in every dimension. Why can't a person say so, especially on an ex-Mormon website. Mormonism is replete with the theory. Institutional Mormonism completely wants power and no separation of church and state and the right to impose its version of morality on everyone--with the enforcement power of the state (without state-sanctioned violence, imposing one's will through "morality" has got no bite--where do you think expansive gun laws come from?). White Christian nationalism is very dangerous. I don't consider it Christian at all, but since they call themselves Christian, Christian it must be.

True

Thank you.

I thought the COJCOLDS already did that a few years ago.

PHIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the COJCOLDS already did that a few
> years ago.


Yeah but they didn't denounce TCoTPoTCoJSoLDS

While I very much support both the editorial and the premis of this thread, I ultimately think that it must be our political leaders who must denounce this activity. Even if all of the people responding to this thread were united in their opposition to the growth of Christian nationalism (which they clearly are not), it really doesn't mean anything unless the leaderships of the two political parties, preferably the one that is supporting both these behaviors and statements, were to renounce these behaviors and statements to be wrong, and I just don't see that happening in the current minority party, both because its electoral base strongly supports them and because its financial donors strongly support them.

I agree but also would like to see a bigger crackdown on crimes being committed in the name of Christianity and nationalism. We need more than denouncing at this point.

+1

They need an enemy.
Must. Have. Enemy.
Only way these can feel a sense of "I'm whole."

So invariably they turn upon and destroy each other
- once they have first destroyed those of us "not them."

Usually, I agree with you. On this subject, I don't.

I’m not seeing how OP is being racist. The article is denouncing racism and she is in agreement. What did I miss?

I have really tried to understand religious extremists and racists from an emotional point of view, but I can't. I grew up in the same surroundings, in the same sort of social situations, but I don't think they way they do. Probably because my parents were not racist, my father was in the military, and I grew up seeing people from all four corners of the world as fellow human beings -- not groups. They want an all or nothing, winner takes all, zero-sum game world in which they either dominate or wind up being the dominated. I also know that once this has been taught in childhood, it is very difficult to leave it behind as an adult.

I'm not perfect. I've made inadvertent ethnocentric mistakes -- but once I found out that I made a mistake, I learned from it and vowed never to do it again.

I remember a cold, windy evening after work during the late autumn just before the pandemic hit. I was tired, I was waiting in the car park of a big box store to pick up an order, and I was listening to the car radio and watching all the people going in and out.

I saw all kinds of people. I saw some very smart looking Sikh guys in their formal white outfits and colourful turbans, a Latino family with their grandparents, a gay couple with a big screen TV, a Vietnamese girl and her white boyfriend, a young white woman with her two mixed race children, a tall, distinguished senior executive looking older white man and his African American wife, and after them, another senior and very short Jewish or Italian looking couple that must have been in their late eighties or early nineties -- but still able to get around on their own.

I thought to myself, "there's been no civilization like this on this Earth since the days of ancient Rome -- people from every corner the world living as a single nation and held together not by race, or religion, or language -- but by an idea." Then I started crying. I was crying because I was proud that I was an American. Proud that I was alive to see this. Then I realized that this what the fundies could not see. This is what they could not feel. This is what they could not understand. That all they could feel and experience was fear. Fear of being "replaced." Fear of having people worship in ways that either they didn't accept or understand, or not worship at all. Fear of hearing another tongue besides their own. Fear of seeing grandchildren that did not look like them.

Logic and reason do not work on people like that. I can't persuade them. They have to figure it out on their own.

It just makes me sad when I think of all the time, energy, and effort they are expending to try and go back to the past instead of trying to build a better future for all of us -- together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2022 09:27PM by anybody.

Thankyou, anybody. That was touching.

Today I noticed a neighbor has a sticker on his truck window of a hand making the white supremist sign. My town has lots of Native Americans, Hispanics and international university students. I feel bad that they will see that sticker and feel the hate it projects.

anybody, as someone who often writes acerbically and thereby offends a lot of people, I submit that your style is sometimes acerbic and offends people too.

There are times when that confuses the message.

I had the opposite experience growing up. The Mormon side of my extended family was from the deep South. Nice enough people but racist as the day is long. I remember as a small child discussions in hushed tones of a lynching in a neighboring town that had happened some 30 years earlier, in the mid 1920s. Hushed tones make a kid’s ears perk up. The last time I heard one of them tell a racist joke was around 2010, so it was not like things improved much over time. BTW, the joke teller was the wife of an Area Authority and former temple president, second tier Mormon royalty.

Plus I grew up in a coal mining city filled with Italian and Polish immigrants from the early 20th century. Seems odd now, but those two groups were not considered “real white peoples” until about the time I was born, after WWII. Pollock and Daego jokes were common when I was a kid. You don’t hear those anymore.

Further, my high school, about 2,000 students, had zero Black students until my senior year when several kids from one Black family attended the school.

And lastly, I spent two years in northern Brazil being very careful not to bring anyone with “the lineage” into the Mormon Church. And my mother, the most devout of a seriously devout extended Mo family, was probably the most racist.

Why I didn’t turn out racist is beyond me. Of course I didn’t turn out Mormon either. And I was largely clueless about racism until embarrassingly late in life, about age 30. Which, come to think of it, was when the LDS priesthood policy changed.