The Arrogance of Christian Nationalism

0

WorldNetDaily, a right-wing religious “news” outfit, recently interviewed U.S. Representative Steve King, R-Iowa. King attempts to prove that American is a Christian nation, but succeeds only in showing his stunning arrogance.


King begins by claiming, “you could not build America without Christianity,” citing specifically the Ten Commandments. I have thoroughly debunked this claim (see a video of the debunking here and here) and am working on a book on the topic. I’m going to focus on the supercilious “proof” King once addressed to Alan Colmes:

“This is a Christian nation and I will prove it to you. If you drive home tonight and you drive in your driveway and your neighbor’s dog has gotten loose and runs in front of your car and you run over your neighbor’s dog and kill the neighbor’s dog, if you’re any kind of a man you’ll go over to the neighbor and knock on the door and say, ‘I killed your dog.’ Alan, that’s called confession.

And the next thing that you will say is, ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to.’ … And that’s confession and then repentance. And then once you repent, you’ll say, ‘please forgive me, I didn’t mean to kill your dog.’ And if your neighbor is any kind of a man your neighbor will say, ‘Alan, you didn’t mean to kill the dog, it really wasn’t your fault, you’ve confessed, you’ve repented, and you are forgiven.’ That’s called redemption.”

A common perception of Christianity, or perhaps a common Christian self-perception, is that Christianity or Christians are humble and that atheists, humanists, and scientists are arrogant. Dwell briefly on this notion and it is quickly and correctly reversed. Christianity claims to know ultimate truth with absolute certainty on the basis of no evidence. Atheists, humanists, and scientists claim to have answers supported by evidence, not faith, and are willing to alter their views should new evidence arise. The conceit falls on the side of unshakable faith.

King’s claim is the latest of many arrogant claims Christian nationalists make while attempting to prove our nation is really their nation. 

Written By: Andrew Seidel
continue to source article at ffrf.org

NO COMMENTS

  1. Well. I am certainly glad he cleared that up about “christian-dom”. The comments to the original article are something else. (Exits, seeks medical attention for facial bruising due to repeated strikes by own palms.)

    • In reply to #2 by rod-the-farmer:

      The comments to the original article are something else.

      Nice to see them squabbling among themselves. I see we get an “honorable mention” – here:

      Every person on the face of this earth who is not a born-again believer in Jesus Christ will worship the Antichrist as god… even the atheists.

      Oh how I enjoyed that bit. But the real villians seem to be an ungodly alliance of catholics, mexicans, communists and homosexuals. And that non-white person in the white house.

      • In reply to #7 by OHooligan:

        In reply to #2 by rod-the-farmer:

        The comments to the original article are something else.

        Nice to see them squabbling among themselves. I see we get an “honorable mention” – here:

        Every person on the face of this earth who is not a born-again believer in Jesus Christ will worship the Antichrist…

        I was amused to see one of the more voluble dipsticks kept using the word “Christain”. What kind of stain is that? Will bleach remove it?

  2. Except for harrassing gays, almost nothing in the old testament is observed in the USA. It does not even avoid graven images, one of the 10 deadliest wickednesses.

    Spitting on the poor, as Republican Christians love to do is hardly what Jesus required.

    It it would be interesting if someday somebody actually tried out Christianity (commandments of Jesus) so we could see what it is supposed to look like.

    • In reply to #4 by Roedy:

      It it would be interesting if someday somebody actually tried out Christianity (commandments of Jesus) so we could see what it is supposed to look like.

      If one did, I’m almost certain that the person in question would be institutionalized.

  3. That f***ing dog had it coming. Plus the neighbor, fine upstanding Xtian that he is, has guns and an untrustworthy temper. No way he’s gonna make a martyr out of me. Dump the carcass for recycling behind the korean restaurant, and clean up the car.

  4. Sucked in to reply again but the laughter is worth it. The humility! It’s nice to an arrogant atheist without any moral sense. Silly as the comments on the source site are we know what fanatics can do when heavily armed. All these religions of peace, I must be ignorant and confused. Sinking fast. Must read more Dawkins, Hitchens, Darwin…………..

  5. Form the article:

    “Christianity does not require or even advocate that its adherents accept responsibility or apologize for wrongs. The central tenet of Christianity — that Jesus died for your sins and, by accepting him as your savior those sins are forgiven — is a complete abrogation of personal responsibility”.

    To be fair, this is not true. To earn forgiveness in a christian sense, you must truly and personally repent. No repentance = no forgiveness = no heaven. Sounds simple enough, but actually personal repentance, in this sense, is rather hard to come by. Of course most people repent when they are caught, or especially when, for the first time, those steel cell doors slide shut with a clang. But this sort of repentance isn’t ok either. In these cases, the root of your repentance is getting caught.

    In fact, if repentance gains you anything material or spiritual at all, it is hard to say whether you truly repented or just said you did to get on with life. Just as well the all-seeing adjudicator in the sky is watching. But down here on the ground it can be confusing.

  6. The problem with the confession-repentance-forgiveness argument for Christianity being at work here is that doing those things is a human universal, whereas what Christianity added to the story is confessing and repenting to, and seeking forgiveness from, an invisible party rather than the one that you affected. It’s basically an argument from a pun; “Confession type A, therefore confession type B”.

  7. at #9 and OP I think one of the big misunderstanding of this article is about “repentance” the OP reduces “repentance” to saying “sorry”. That maybe part of it but “repentance” is about a change of mind. Repentance (in this case) would be more I’m going to drive with care from now on and check my mirrors just in case there is a dog with a hose as I am reversing.

  8. That story about the dog and the neighbour is so ridiculous and such a non sequitur.
    It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a young seminarist (from the Opus Dei), who was trying to preach to me into “converting”. He casually told me about a time whe he discovered a wallet in the street. It probably belonged to someone who had been robed, because it had no money at all, but still had some documents, like i.d. etc. “So, what did you do”, I asked. “Well, nothing, I let it where it was, what would you have done?” I didn´t have to hypothesize, because it had actually happened to me a couple of years before. I found a wallet on top of a trash bin, with i.d. cards and no money, belonging to a foreigner. First, I phoned de embassy of this guy’s nationality, in case he had reported it. They told me he had, the wallet was stolen from him but he had already returned to his country. I asked whether I should mail the documents to him or to the embassy, so that they would send them to him. I did the latter at my own cost and that was it. The priest in the making looked at me a bit puzzled and said: “Oh, It had never occured to me to do so”.
    And I was the the godless creature.

  9. What is all this nonsense about Christian forgiveness?

    According to gentle Jesus, the likes of me are headed for the fiery lake for eternity ! He can keep His bloody forgiveness ! Tin pot dictator !

    As for the dog, why didn’t the owner keep it under control? Or did the owner give it the “free will” to be run over?

    • In reply to #18 by Mr DArcy:

      What is all this nonsense about Christian forgiveness?

      According to gentle Jesus, the likes of me are headed for the fiery lake for eternity ! He can keep His bloody forgiveness ! Tin pot dictator !

      Mr DArcy, why to do you reject God’s forgiveness so aggressively?

  10. The Christian claims cited in the article about America being a Christian nation are, perhaps, not the best examples that one could use. The illustration about running over your neighbour’s dog doesn’t seem to be the most appropriate. 1 – I agree with the comment on this discussion that to apologise is ‘just not being a jerk’. 2 – Confession to a fault or an accident is not exclusively a Christian concept. 3 – Repentance, in the true Christian sense, is NOT just saying you’re sorry: it’s a conscious acknowledgement that your life has been going in the wrong direction and you now wish to turn around and go God’s way and not to repeat past lifestyle patterns. Assuming your neighbour has only one dog, you cannot ‘repent’ in this fashion, because by definition, you’re not likely to do it again.

    Having said that, I don’t necessarily agree that Christians who would want to build a nation based on Christian principle does not mean they are arrogant. My view (and I expect to be shot down for saying this) is that to allow for at least the possibility of a Superior Being who will judge us all is not arrogant when they seek to promote ideals that may encourage people to submit to that Being. (This is not the same as Christians forcing their view on everyone else, although I admit that it might look like that from the other side of the fence.) It could be argued, however, that others who wish to live without that perspective are arrogant on the basis that they are not willing to submit their attitudes or actions in such a way.

    I would also contest the statement in the comments that Christians have faith that is based on no evidence. The first Disciples who knew Jesus watched him die (well, those who stuck around, anyway) also documented that they witnessed him alive again. I know this is an outrageous claim because people do not rise from the dead. Exactly! That’s the point. If such a thing was commonplace, then it wouldn’t be a miracle and it wouldn’t be special. Indeed, the events in Jesus’ life, including his resurrection, were documented at a time when people who would have witnessed these things would have known if they weren’t true. You may doubt or dismiss the evidence, but you cannot say there is no evidence.

    Regarding the post that says nothing in the Old Testament is practised in America, it is a Biblical principle that for the New Testament believer, faith in Jesus Christ supersede a lot of the Old Testament requirements, and therefore, the argument does not really apply.

    • One does not have to “submit” to a deity to do the right thing.

      I’ll let others here respond to the biblical documentation issues, if they care to.

      In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

      The Christian claims cited in the article about America being a Christian nation are, perhaps, not the best examples that one could use. The illustration about running over your neighbour’s dog doesn’t seem to be the most appropriate. 1 – I agree with the comment on this discussion that to apologis…

      • In reply to #20 by Sara:

        One does not have to “submit” to a deity to do the right thing.

        Yes one does. Without a Deity, there IS no right or wrong thing. There would be only opinion, perception, culture, custom. I know you will have heard this position presented before, so there’s nothing new. That doesn’t matter. Surely thinking logically, if there is no absolute, there there is no objective measure to judge actions to be deemed right or wrong.

        I’ll let others here respond to the biblical documentation issues, if they care to.

        In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

        The Christian claims cited in the article about America being a Christian nation are, perhaps, not the best examples th…

        • WITH a deity there is no right or wrong. There is only the opinion, perception, culture and custom of that deity.

          Moreover, in the absence of that deity lecturing us from the sky there is only the opinion, perception, culture and custom of the PEOPLE that wrote, edited, translated and interpreted the books purporting to represent the opinion, perception, culture and custom of that deity.

          But even if we only have the opinion, perception, culture and custom of mere people, that qualifies as a definition of right or wrong. Pre-biblical cultures, or others developing in ignorance of the bible, nevertheless established their own rights and wrongs – including the big ones about theft and murder. Even the rights and wrongs set out in the bible only survive for as long as the opinion, perception, culture and custom of people permit. Slavery was once deemed right, working on the Sabbath deemed wrong. That these positions are now reversed is down to the opinion, perception, culture and custom of people, not because a deity changed its mind.

          Finally, just to point out that the comment you were responding to stated that one does not have to submit to a deity to do the right thing – the existence of the deity was not in question (in that sentence at least), merely that belief in one is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing. A different issue.

          In reply to #24 by Lonevoice:

          In reply to #20 by Sara:

          One does not have to “submit” to a deity to do the right thing.

          Yes one does. Without a Deity, there IS no right or wrong thing. There would be only opinion, perception, culture, custom. I know you will have heard this position presented before, so there’s nothing new. T…

        • In reply to #24 by Lonevoice:

          Without a Deity, there IS no right or wrong

          Nail hit perfeclty on the head. Or the thumb. I think that sums up the case against religion of all kinds. They state things like the above quote, which is at best stupid and at worst pure evil.

    • In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

      The Christian claims cited in the article about America being a Christian nation are, perhaps, not the best examples that one could use. The illustration about running over your neighbour’s dog doesn’t seem to be the most appropriate. 1 – I agree with the comment on this discussion that to apologis…

      What are you saying – that the CLAIM by Christ’s followers to have seen him risen from the dead, amounts to evidence? It isn’t evidence, good or bad, it’s testimony. We constantly hear testimony from folk who say they’ve seen Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or a flying saucer, but most sensible people demand evidence to sustain that testimony. Some of the TV evangelists claim to speak with God; do you call that evidence for anything other than the state of their minds?

      • In reply to #22 by CEVA34:

        In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

        I am saying that the written testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence. Considering that we cannot view CCTV footage to verify historic claims, it sounds like you’re saying that documentary accounts from the past cannot be used as evidence? That is surely unrealstic, as history classes would be pointless.

        The Gospel of Mark is widely regarded to be a log of the Apostle Peter’s account of his experience with Jesus Christ. Luke worked and travelled with the Apostle Paul and, as a doctor who was keen to pull evidence together in presenting his record, stated at the beginning of his Gospel that he has sought to provide an orderly account.

        Putting the disciples’ claims about Christ next to with sightings of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster reasonable, because they are not similar. I have never heard that either of these imaginary creatures were witnessed simultaneously by a crowd of people. Were they all halluscinating when Christ appeared to a crowd of 500 people? John also wrote his own gospel many years after the events, so this is the latest first-hand account.

        And as for the biblical record not being evidence, the following events speaks volumes – about how the disciples were changed. As I said in my earlier post, all except one fled when they saw Jesus being whipped, flogged and crucified. They fled for their own lives! After the crucifixion, they hid behind locked doors for fear of persecution from the authorities who had killed Jesus. Yet, a few weeks later, there they were as bold as brass preaching in the town square and in the Temple courts, in broad daylight and in full view of those self-same authorities. Years later, Peter ended up being crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded, Stephen was stoned and James was marytred. Tell me, if they had not actually seen Christ rise from the dead with their own eyes, what put such courage into these previously cowering jellies? It was the truth of Christ’s claims to be the Son of God an his powerful resurrection from the dead.

        Now, if you can present “evidence” (that counts as evidence) to conflict with the Biblical record, then I’d be interested to see it. And please don’t trot out some line that it was all put together centuries later. Church history has traced the use of Scripture to the earliest times.

        • Sorry, I pressed like instead of reply.

          Anyway, CHURCH historians have concluded something about the CHURCH? No way!!!

          I was a juror on a murder case and the mother of the killer testified that there was “no way my son could have done this awful crime”. BTW he was a devout Christian who murdered his wife at the Thanksgiving table with the turkey carving knife. The witnesses were his kids, his sister, and his sister’s husband. But, there was no way he could do such a thing.

          So you’ve fallen for the bullshit to the point where you, yourself, will not even consider the argument that it was all hearsay. Put it this way, it would NOT stand up in a court of law as evidence. It is bullshit and your mind is closed. You are too invested in it being true, therefore anything that threatens it is dismissed. You are the mom in the murder trial.

          As for morality without a deity, I live all day every day without a deity (and so do many people here) and have been doing the right thing for 45 years. I do the right thing without any deity and our prisons are full of people who have done the wrong thing with a deity. Why isn’t that evidence enough for you?

          Oh, that’s right, you are correct because you say so and dismiss any evidence that shows that you are wrong. So, go turn fox news back on, blast the TV and find all your conclusions before finding any facts…. And keep repeating the mantra that all the bad in the world is due to someone other than YOU.

          In reply to #26 by Lonevoice:

          In reply to #22 by CEVA34:

          In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

          I am saying that the written testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence. Considering that we cannot view CCTV footage to verify historic claims, it sounds like you’re saying that documentary accounts from the past cannot be used as evidence? Tha…

          • In reply to #28 by crookedshoes:

            Sorry, I pressed like instead of reply.

            Hi Crookedshoes. You can ‘Unlike’ a ‘Like’ mistake, to prevent confusion by those who know you…. 8-)

        • In reply to #26 by Lonevoice:

          In reply to #22 by CEVA34:

          In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

          I am saying that the written testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence. Considering that we cannot view CCTV footage to verify historic claims, it sounds like you’re saying that documentary accounts from the past cannot be used as evidence? Tha…

          Jesus appeared to 500 people? Chicken-feed! There were many thousands of “witnesses” to the Miracle of Fatima in 1917 Portugal, but that doesn’t mean the event happened as described. The sun skipped around the sky and “crashed to earth”.
          The very phrase “crashed to earth” is ludicrous, considering the relative sizes of the Earth and the Sun.
          Furthermore, how is it that the sun’s behaviour was not reported elsewhere in the world? Needless to say, any such event in reality, would have entailed the violent breakup of the solar system, and we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.
          Obviously SOMETHING took place that day, but it wasn’t what the miracle narrative describes. The same applies to the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

          You say that we should rely on the statements of the Disciples, because they were there and knew what happened. Well, the Jewish Church was there too, and obviously had some idea what was going on, so how is it that it didn’t accept Jesus as the promised Messiah? After all, they would have WANTED to believe the Messiah had arrived, wouldn’t they?

          Remember what Hume said about miracles: “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.”

          • In reply to #30 by CEVA34:

            In reply to #26 by Lonevoice:

            In reply to #22 by CEVA34:

            In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:
            You haven’t persuaded me yet that you have evidence to refute the resurrection of Christ. You simply said what I cited is not evidence.

            I am saying that the written testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence. Considering that we cannot view CCTV footage to verify historic claims, it sounds like you’re saying that documentary accounts from the past c…

        • In reply to #26 by Lonevoice:

          In reply to #22 by CEVA34:

          In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

          I am saying that the written testimony of eyewitnesses is evidence.

          How do you know that is eyewitness testimony?

          And as for the biblical record not being evidence, the following events speaks volumes – about how the disciples were changed. As I said in my earlier post, all except one fled when they saw Jesus being whipped, flogged and crucified. They fled for their own lives! After the crucifixion, they hid behind locked doors for fear of persecution from the authorities who had killed Jesus. Yet, a few weeks later, there they were as bold as brass preaching in the town square and in the Temple courts, in broad daylight and in full view of those self-same authorities. Years later, Peter ended up being crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded, Stephen was stoned and James was marytred. Tell me, if they had not actually seen Christ rise from the dead with their own eyes, what put such courage into these previously cowering jellies? It was the truth of Christ’s claims to be the Son of God an his powerful resurrection from the dead.

          One or two prominent disciples could have had dreams of a ascended Jesus (or just lied about it) that they told to the rest of the disciples. I noticed when I went to church as a boy that there are all ways members of the congregation that wanted to be seen as closer to god then everyone else and I can see this happening to the Jesus cult. One or two members say Jesus visited them automatically elevating their status in the cult( in a power vacuum with their leader being dead), other members get jealous and all the sudden every one is seeing a risen Jesus. Except Ted, ” I heard Jesus hasn’t visited him yet. Probably because of his lack of faith. He was never as close to Jesus as we were. Oh wait there’s Ted, and he says he’s finally seen Jesus, maybe he has faith after all”.

          And I wonder how dangerous it really was to preach about Jesus after he died. I mean if the Romans really got so mad about it why didn’t they kill all of the preaching apostles in the first months after Jesus’ death? If it was so mortally dangerous why did it take most of the apostles twenty to thirty years to finally piss someone off enough to kill them?

    • *In reply to #19 by Lonevoice: “….. I would also contest the statement in the comments that Christians have faith that is based on no evidence” ….. “You may doubt or dismiss the evidence, but you cannot say there is no evidence.”

      Hi Lonevoice.

      I don’t know how you learned your interpretation of your version of your religion, but you don’t seem to understand the meaning of ‘evidence’ as opposed to ‘assertion’. You have been involved in RDFRS for about 2 weeks, so you probably don’t know that we’ve read all about your arguments over the years, and they have been comprehensively dismantled by RDFRS Users who have very high levels of religious knowledge and education, and who have linked their arguments to many high-quality sources of historical expertise and actual evidence.

      Your assertions of ‘evidence’ from one of many versions of ‘the’ bible consist of circular reasoning, which is not acceptable for reality-based discussion among folk who expect much higher levels of accuracy and logic, with references supporting your statements.

      There are many previous Posts and Comments where you can learn about others who underestimated the competence of this Community and were taken to task over statements and claims like yours, therefore preventing many Users having to go over the same old ground again and again.

      I don’t have the interest or competence to unravel your Comments, but I assure you there are a bunch of long-time Members who can – and you may see some of them here replying yet….

      We welcome anybody who comes here with their opinions, but don’t underestimate the knowledge base you are taking on, and how much depth they can go to to show you the errors contained in your Comments.

      Lonevoice ….. “Regarding the post that says nothing in the Old Testament is practised in America, it is a Biblical principle that for the New Testament believer, faith in Jesus Christ supersede a lot of the Old Testament requirements, and therefore, the argument does not really apply.”

      Oh my, isn’t that convenient for your cult, considering the social and moral implications….

      Let me re-arrange your statement a bit, to represent how I think most people here feel.

      For folk who understand better methods of obtaining evidence over the past 2000 years, it is a Scientific principle that for those who accept Reality, evidence supercedes revelation, and therefore, argument from either Testament does not really apply…. 8-)

      Good luck with your faith-based opinions, and possible upcoming enlightenment, Mac….

    • In reply to #19 by Lonevoice:

      I would also contest the statement in the comments that Christians have faith that is based on no evidence.

      This is the confusing of blind faith in Bible myths with “evidence”. To contest the claim, you would need to produce the historically verifiable evidence.

      Many Xtians have trustingly accepted stories of evidence from preachers, only to find that in fact no such objective evidence exists. Some simply make up their (numerous differing) own versions and call it evidence, as many have done for centuries.

      The first Disciples who knew Jesus watched him die (well, those who stuck around, anyway) also documented that they witnessed him alive again.

      This is only a STORY about witnesses. Not first-hand accounts by witnesses. The gospels (including the Coptic and Gnostic gospels) were not written until decades or centuries after supposed events.

      I know this is an outrageous claim because people do not rise from the dead. Exactly! That’s the point. If such a thing was commonplace, then it wouldn’t be a miracle and it wouldn’t be special.

      I know! … and the amazing thing is, that with all their attention to keeping detailed records, NONE of the contemporary Roman historians recorded any sign of these alleged spectacular events along with other major events of the time!

      Indeed, the events in Jesus’ life, including his resurrection, were documented at a time when people who would have witnessed these things would have known if they weren’t true.

      Nope! Only Biblical accounts written decades or centuries later say so, and those conflict with each other http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/05/judas-gospel/cockburn-text.html! – according to which Xtian sect wrote the gospel. None of them were written by named disciples claimed as authors.

      You may doubt or dismiss the evidence, but you cannot say there is no evidence.

      There is no contemporary evidence. There are only stories ABOUT EVIDENCE!

      Sorry to shatter your illusions, but this site debates historical facts and evidence.

      It’s a bit like a record of a whole school of witnesses watching Harry Potter broom-flying to play an important position for his Quidditch house team at Hogwarts. Harry Potter owned two flying broomsticks, the Nimbus 2000 and the Firebolt. The book clearly said all the witnesses were watching him fly to victory!

      There are discussions of some of these issues here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2013/5/29/-not-my-god-the-argument-atheists-consistently-fail-to-address#

      and here:
      http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2013/4/28/historical-fact-vs-faith-reasoning#

  11. furthermore this whole idea is wrong.

    In a real situation like this he would, after tearing up his own driveway so fast and out of control that he’s unable to avoid the dog without dangerously spilling the contents of his KFC bucket over his lap, go to his neighbour with the dog corpse and inform the owner was about to get sued for damage to the front of his car. the neighbour would respond, quite correctly, by emptying the clip of his assult rifle into the complainant for a-trespassun on his front lawn.

    but yes either way it does read like a christian country

  12. If Alan Colmes’ dog story doesn’t exemplify the most pathetically lame logic for claiming America is a Christian nation…I don’t know what does. This “confession, forgiveness, redemption” trope is used to excuse the most egregious crimes. How many teary-eyed evangelists and religiopublicans have we seen on TV bleating about how they “sinned” but Jesus (and their wives, kids, constituents, etc.) has forgiven them, so everything’s A-OK! I had a discussion with one of these pinheads who claimed that God, through Jesus’ sacrifice, can now forgive any sin, no matter how awful. According to this knuckledragger, Hitler could be in heaven if he confessed and repented just as the cyanide capsule started to work, but an Atheist physician who spent his whole life saving desperately ill children in Africa for free would burn in hell for all eternity. Yay! Mass murderers, Ponzi-scheme masterminds, child-molesting priests, wife-beating and cheating pastors, drunk drivers, parents who let their kids die for Jesus….they get mansions, streets of gold, and eternal life. Nice. What a philosophy. If this were true, I’d rather claim that America was a Satanist nation.

    And that’s leaving out the fact – loudly and proudly displayed every day – that Christians are some of the most paranoid, uncharitable, rigid, authoritarian, unforgiving, narrow-minded, criminally-inclined, adulterous, ignorant, and absolutely UNREPENTANT people on the face of the earth. They talk the talk, but most certainly DON’T walk the walk.

    • In reply to #29 by crookedshoes:

      Oh, and, before you tell me to “get anger management” or that you do not “like” my use of profanity…. I am neither angry nor profane. Your belief system is.

      There, there. Do you feel better now?

  13. @OP – The Arrogance of Christian Nationalism

    Lonevoice: – Without a Deity, there IS no right or wrong

    Which translated into English states:- “My dogma, for which there is no evidence, is the only form of morality on the planet! Moral judgements from others looking at evidence of effects and outcomes affecting people and the future, are all wrong!”

    This is a prime example of the know-it-all closed mind, which has no interest in understanding the world!

Leave a Reply