“This is how we should order our lives together,” he said. “And frankly, yes, we are going to impose it upon you. If you don’t like it, I’m sorry, but this is good and right and just if it lines up with God’s standards, and I am going to enforce my morality on you in as much as our morality is God’s morality.”
“You should always check yourselves,” he continued. “Do I believe what God believes? Am I defending what God says is good?”
“And if it is, then you should have the courage to say, ‘This is how we’re going to run our town, this is how we’re going to run our county, this is how we’re going to run our state, and this is how we should run the United States of America by legislating the morality that we can find in the Bible.'”
They can’t even impose Christian values on themselves. And that’s what I’ve noticed about control freaks: those who can’t control themselves will absolutely try to control everyone else. Virtue by proxy is a hell of a vice.
Good luck. This is a stupid hill to die on. A huge chunk of Gen Z identifies under the LGBT umbrella (around one in three.) There’s no going back.
As is tradition.
Forcing Jews to have Christian values is NOT Anti Semetic! Anti Semetic is when you DONT Bomb Children!
-Republicans, The ADL AND AIPAC!
These are the same people projecting that respect for others living their own lives was shoving DEI down their throats.
I feel like that one line from Kingsman (the good one, right before the fight scene in the church) is appropriate here.
Harry Hart: [to bigoted church lady] I’m a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. So, hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon, madam.
Assuming he actually believes this, he just needs to extend that logic one tiny step forward. A more plausible explanation is he knows that it isn’t true but still needs some sort of argument that explains the regime’s repugnant behaviour. Those are your dismal options. Reminds me of that South African leader who claimed he was raping girls as a cure for AIDS because raping girls has bad optics.
You mean their made up fake Christian values. If an actual Christian saw what these creeps consider Christian values, they’d be very upset. Pretty sure infidelity, bribery, cheating, fraud, name calling, mockery, gambling, false worship, casting out of strangers and all the rest is exactly contradictory to the book they claim to hold in reverence.
Don’t forget child rape and murder
Well, this is the Bible… Didn’t want to get too specific, but there is a little bit of child rape and murder in that book…
As opposed to the traditional catholic values of murdering brown people, burning apostates, progroming Jews, policing every aspect of sexuality, and most importantly enforcing a rigid belief in social hierarchy and the divine rights of nobility?
These xtianists don’t really seem to give a fuck about the Sermon on the Mount very much.
Alas, there are no true scotsmen
At what point is something considered an entirely different belief system though?
Part of why there are so many different sects of Christianity is because belief systems can differ quite a lot on what the focus is for followers of the faith.
Even Mormons are considered Christian, but many Christians would put them in their own category since they have an entirely different holy book that they follow.
Maybe it comes back to the word for ‘Christian’ being this less meaningful, all encompassing, definition. In which case, I feel there’s an argument to be made that having at least some other way to show distinction matters, whether that’s a new word or phrase entirely.
For the sake of conversation though, I feel there is some utility in using the word we are already familiar with, in this case ‘Christian’, and making a compelling definition, in the context of the conversation, based on the values echoed in the text. I feel that we can still hold the general understanding that this is a narrow definition, but it’s one made based on those values that we may want to see encouraged.
TL;DR: It’s difficult to have a conversation about any group of people that is made up of a wide assortment of people from different walks of life.
Needs to be renamed to “no true Christian” at this point
All Christian values are made up, bruh. But I get your point.
No, there are.
The “teachings of Jesus” seem just fine: stuff like love thy neighbour no matter what (aka don’t hate minorities), let the one without sins throw rocks first (aka don’t judge), throwing a tantrum at money changers (aka communist).
If only Christians looked up to the one and only character they literally believe is God in human form and try following his actions.
But alas, those Christians are “Christians”, and most know more abot the teachings of Thomas Aquinas than Jesus Christ.
Okay, yes, but Harris didn’t support the proletariat enough.
our morality is God’s morality
That’s because you invented your idea of God to match your own prejudices.
Do I believe what God believes?
Humans have beliefs and opinions. If you think that which creates and sustains the universe has beliefs and opinions, it strongly suggests you’re overly likening it to yourself. Once again, you’re projecting your own prejudices.
Just another case of assholes inventing God in their own image and claiming it went the other way round.
If these guys were going to impose, say, the Quaker interpretation of “the” Bible on America, I might not mind quite so much.
But no, these jerkoffs always take up the most ridiculously hateful and tyrannical version of xtianity that conservatives can find. It’s the most hateful version they can find to validate all their preconceived notions of morality.
Kinda weird how that works - people with a decent set of morality join up with things like Quakers, or the UUs, or something like that.
People with extreme conservative views join up with the militaristic groups that want to back Israel in order to bring about their end of the world fantasies.
It’s almost like they treat “the” bible like a Rorschach blot, and that’s if they’ve even read the thing.
“Sharia law” by any other name.
I remember a particular asshat on DP forums that would try to get me booted all the time, and always crying that there is no such thing as xtian Shariah Law and that calling xtianists talibangelicals was so very unfair and so mean, and oh my god, the civility of it all!
The xtianists definitely have Shariah Law even if, sure, they don’t call it that, duh.
Other than the days they worship and a few other differences about ritual and so on, explain the difference between backward dumbasses of the fundamentalist stripe of either of these Abrahamic religions?
Both groups ache to subjugate women and murder infidels and gays, etc.
Why would Obama do this?
Sharia Law permits abortions in some cases.
You think you know what god believes? Always trying to impose it on others, even if they’ve told you no. Sounds like god derangement syndrome!
Yeah, we know! The Christian Right is dead-set on rolling back the rights of the women, same-sex couples, LGBTQ kids, and other minority groups. Think I’m exaggerating? Think of the Dobbs decision.
No I don’t think anyone here will think you’re exaggerating because they’ve literally been doing all that since they got back in power. 😫
Y’all Qaeda.
1797 - Treaty of Tripoli. Unanimously voted on and signed by the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams:
“[t]he Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Christo-fascists go “Nuh unh! It’s not in the Arabic text!”
To which the correct answer is “Yes, it’s the ENGLISH version that was voted on and signed by President Adams.”
