James Carvill: Christian Nationalists are a bigger threat than Al-Queda

I think Carville may be wrong about Islamofascism and Christian Nationalism being separate forces.

They could so easily become allies.

If the Nationalists use some form of conditional salvation to put a monopoly on spiritual support, then they can replace outsiders and outliers from their path by letting the Islamizers have them.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Let's get something straight; Christians in America ( and elsewhere) NEVER invent new laws. As conservatives by definition they aim to maintain the laws that have kept society functioning and prosperous for decades.

Do you actually believe what you are even saying?

Am I in Clown world right now?

Be sure to only use reputable sources that are not steeped in far left ideology such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, The Atlantic, or other far left publications as liberals are always demanding of conservatives to use only reputable and unbiased sources.

Yes, by all means -- don't use any mainstream news site (unless approved by the Right).

Or Politi-fact -- unless they side with the Right.

Politico Reporter Apologizes for ‘Clumsy’ Comments on ‘Christian Nationalists’ After Outcry
🤓

Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla wrote an article on Thursday apologizing for her comments painting those who believe their rights come from God as “extremists” and “Christian nationalists.”

Przyblya’s article was published after leading Christian organizations sent a letter to Politico leadership on Wednesday demanding an apology and accusing her of demonstrating a “disqualifying lack of knowledge of the United States of America’s founding documents and a profoundly prejudicial view toward American religious groups.”

“Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe,” Przybyla wrote. “Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection, I feel sure, was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call ‘Christian Nationalism.’ Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air, there is a big difference between the two.”

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Let's get something straight; Christians in America ( and elsewhere) NEVER invent new laws. As conservatives by definition they aim to maintain the laws that have kept society functioning and prosperous for decades.

Do you actually believe what you are even saying?

Am I in Clown world right now?

Be sure to only use reputable sources that are not steeped in far left ideology such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, The Atlantic, or other far left publications as liberals are always demanding of conservatives to use only reputable and unbiased sources.

Yes, by all means -- don't use any mainstream news site (unless approved by the Right).

Or Politi-fact -- unless they side with the Right.

Politico Reporter Apologizes for ‘Clumsy’ Comments on ‘Christian Nationalists’ After Outcry
🤓

Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla wrote an article on Thursday apologizing for her comments painting those who believe their rights come from God as “extremists” and “Christian nationalists.”

Przyblya’s article was published after leading Christian organizations sent a letter to Politico leadership on Wednesday demanding an apology and accusing her of demonstrating a “disqualifying lack of knowledge of the United States of America’s founding documents and a profoundly prejudicial view toward American religious groups.”

“Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe,” Przybyla wrote. “Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection, I feel sure, was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call ‘Christian Nationalism.’ Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air, there is a big difference between the two.”

I wonder who threatened her paycheck.

I've been following Dominionism for a long time.

Heidi was probably still watching Blues Clues.

The commie folks always point to their enemies and claim we are doing the crimes they commit.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Let's get something straight; Christians in America ( and elsewhere) NEVER invent new laws. As conservatives by definition they aim to maintain the laws that have kept society functioning and prosperous for decades.

Do you actually believe what you are even saying?

Am I in Clown world right now?

Once again, you privide no specifics. Give me some examples of new laws Christians have put into effect.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Let's get something straight; Christians in America ( and elsewhere) NEVER invent new laws. As conservatives by definition they aim to maintain the laws that have kept society functioning and prosperous for decades.

Do you actually believe what you are even saying?

Am I in Clown world right now?

Be sure to only use reputable sources that are not steeped in far left ideology such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, The Atlantic, or other far left publications as liberals are always demanding of conservatives to use only reputable and unbiased sources.

Yes, by all means -- don't use any mainstream news site (unless approved by the Right).

Or Politi-fact -- unless they side with the Right.

The liberals are always saying "your link is far right" (doesn't agree with me) therefore not to be trusted. I just set the standard that liberals are always setting, no FOX, no NEWSMAX, no BLAZE, no Washington Times, no National Review etc. or what you say will be negated and dismissed as right wing propaganda.

Liberals are forever discrediting links if they are from publications that don't agree with them.

Therefore liberals, Democrats, the left must hold to the same standard they have set for others on ATS and other sites. Forbidding the use of biased news sources otherwise conservatives are discredited and mocked for using the sources above and others like them.

Are you saying it is too much of a challenge to reply with the same standards liberals expect of others. If one can't meet their own standards then their standards are not standards at all but a ruse to put the bar so high for opposition that it is impossible to reach.

I simply asked of him to meet the standards set on ATS by other liberals. Not to use far left links just as they discredit automatically all links they consider to be far right. Fair is fair. But seems you object me asking a liberal to meet the standards set by your fellow liberals. Not surprising at all really.

originally posted by: grey580

I ask the exact same things of liberals, Democrats and the left that you are asking of Christians.

Then don't codify your latest liberal "new morality" into law, changing what was once considered immoral into what you now deem moral, because you say so.

Don't pass laws that parents can not exempt their children from sex education. That in CA includes teaching 6 year olds how to masturbate and 12 year olds how to "fist and blood play" and give them graphic details on the how to's of every form of sexual behavior a human can do.

Don't pass laws that punish women with vaginas in prison (80% of whom have been attacked by a penis, sometimes viciously) from not wanting to be locked in a cell alone with a woman with a penis. Which has resulted in documented rapes and pregnancies; and women punished for complaining about being locked in a cell alone with a penis. Use the law to figure out another way to protect penis bearing women, like they can only be put in a cell with other women with penis' or must be alone in a cell in women's prison; or build transgender only prisons like there are male and female only prisons.

Don't pass laws making biological males the same as biological women in sports where their musculature and bone structure gives them the advantage that Title 9 was supposed to address. Making a mockery of Title 9 and discouraging XX girls from joining sports because they can't compete with XY "girls", erasing decades of women's rights.

Don't pass laws that make it only worth a parking ticket to steal less than $950 worth of merchandise as they did in CA and now stores are fleeing CA cities due to massive theft and brazen thieves.

Don't pass laws that make it impossible for police to turn immigrants who commit heinous crimes over to immigration to kick out of the country or protect immigrants from US law citizens must follow. I was hit by a car by an illegal immigrant with no insurance, what happened to him - nothing - who had to pay - me, because of YOUR morality turned into law.

Don't pass laws that hinder police work so much that massive numbers of police are quitting and no one wants to become a policeman anymore. Making crime soar and cities unsafe and often covered in human feces and urine.

Don't pass laws that make it legal for homeless to camp on a person's lawn, endangering families by allowing drug/alcohol addicts to park themselves permanently in back yards, as actually happened to my relative in CA, who the police said the law wouldn't let them move them from their back lawn in a regular suburban neighborhood. Making YOUR MORALITY into law.

Don't pass laws that forbid the production of gas stoves/furnaces/lawn tools and automobiles: and now going after regular washers and dryers to protect the goddess Gaia.

Finally, and this isn't a law, just what is happening. Stop making nearly "woman of the year" a woman with a penis (as declared by the Biden administration and liberal organizations), tacitly saying to XX little girls and XX women, that to be a superior woman, a role model to other women, you have to have a penis for genitals. Something XX girls can not achieve, stop setting feminism back to the 1950's in sports, in government, in nearly every field.

Hold yourself to the same standard you want to hold me to.

Don't pass laws that push the liberal agenda and encourage the new "liberal morality" of the far left. Don't pass laws making things moral, (like stealing and making it impossible to do anything about criminal acts done by illegal immigrants) free from any real consequences because you think your morality is better than mine.

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

I simply asked of him to meet the standards set on ATS by other liberals. Not to use far left links just as they discredit automatically all links they consider to be far right. Fair is fair. But seems you object me asking a liberal to meet the standards set by your fellow liberals. Not surprising at all really.

I think your wording is slanted.

But, YES -- I strongly support investigating your source.

Not only the source but the writer of articles. The author doesn't necessarily side with the site they're article is on.

Know when something is an OP-ED -- or when it is meant to be factually serious.

There are sites that will tell you the history of any media site.

HOWEVER -- those of the RIGHT on ATS -- tend to use extremist Right-Wing sites. I haven't noticed that as much with the Left-ish (which tends to be anything the Right doesn't agree with).

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

I simply asked of him to meet the standards set on ATS by other liberals. Not to use far left links just as they discredit automatically all links they consider to be far right. Fair is fair. But seems you object me asking a liberal to meet the standards set by your fellow liberals. Not surprising at all really.

I think your wording is slanted.

But, YES -- I strongly support investigating your source.

Not only the source but the writer of articles. The author doesn't necessarily side with the site they're article is on.

Know when something is an OP-ED -- or when it is meant to be factually serious.

There are sites that will tell you the history of any media site.

HOWEVER -- those of the RIGHT on ATS -- tend to use extremist Right-Wing sites. I haven't noticed that as much with the Left-ish (which tends to be anything the Right doesn't agree with).

If you note Grey was using a fuzzy youtube video clip out of context.

He made tons of statements about how violent and evil Christians are with absolutely no sources/links. Just asserting that Christians beat up and try to kill LGBTQ regularly.

That's why I challenged him.

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheSingleBillie

I simply asked of him to meet the standards set on ATS by other liberals. Not to use far left links just as they discredit automatically all links they consider to be far right. Fair is fair. But seems you object me asking a liberal to meet the standards set by your fellow liberals. Not surprising at all really.

I think your wording is slanted.

But, YES -- I strongly support investigating your source.

Not only the source but the writer of articles. The author doesn't necessarily side with the site they're article is on.

Know when something is an OP-ED -- or when it is meant to be factually serious.

There are sites that will tell you the history of any media site.

HOWEVER -- those of the RIGHT on ATS -- tend to use extremist Right-Wing sites. I haven't noticed that as much with the Left-ish (which tends to be anything the Right doesn't agree with).

If you note Grey was using a fuzzy youtube video clip out of context.

He made tons of statements about how violent and evil Christians are with absolutely no sources/links. Just asserting that Christians beat up and try to kill LGBTQ regularly.

That's why I challenged him.

OK

Extremists are extremists.

The Puritans were forced to leave England because of religious persecution. WRONG.

They tried to do the same thing Dominionists/Christian Nationalists are doing today. That is to overthrow the current government for God's Law.

THEIR God -- sounds like a regressive dictatorship to me.

It's not a joke. This is exactly what these extremists are trying to do.

Each generation has been moving further and further away from organized religion. Let's hope it's a continued trend.

a reply to: Annee

Extreme indeed.

Quakers rejected elaborate religious ceremonies, didn’t have official clergy and believed in spiritual equality for men and women. Quaker missionaries first arrived in America in the mid-1650s. Quakers, who practice pacifism, played a key role in both the abolitionist and women’s rights movements.

www.history.com...

Really?

originally posted by: NorthOS
a reply to: Annee

Extreme indeed.

Quakers rejected elaborate religious ceremonies, didn’t have official clergy and believed in spiritual equality for men and women. Quaker missionaries first arrived in America in the mid-1650s. Quakers, who practice pacifism, played a key role in both the abolitionist and women’s rights movements.

www.history.com...

Really?

I was not taking about Quakers.

Puritans saw themselves as the definers and protectors of “God's law.”

Quakers believed each individual had the right and ability to access the spirit of God

a reply to: Annee

My bad Anne, by brain is like oatmeal tonight.

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

THANK YOU.

originally posted by: NorthOS
a reply to: Annee

My bad Anne, by brain is like oatmeal tonight.

Hey, as long as you don't call me names

This guy stopped being relevant in 2015. Looks like the bad guy on a bad sci-fi show on WB.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: TheSingleBillie

I'm going to be real with you. Christians are not innocent.

For a good many years, the so called "christians" have been lording their views upon others. They put laws into place in states that limited peoples rights. Small things like forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday.

There are dry counties where it's illegal to sell alcohol at any time no matter what day it is.

I wouldn't really want to live in a dry county but if the people of that area want it that way then that's their own business.

It's kinda how America works you know. We aren't supposed to have a monolithic set of laws for the entire country. People can decide for themselves how they want THEIR community to operate.

Like for example you could live in Portland where people shoot heroin in the train station and take a crap on the street and erect a tent outside the main entrance of a restaurant.

People in a place like Alabama don't put up with crap like that. They vote differently. It's part of how America works.