Christian Nationalism and Judge Roy Moore

That there is no boundary between the Christian religion and our national government is an ongoing theme among a significant number of people in the U. S.  The same folks who seem to frown on Muslim governments smile at the prospect of a Christian one.

A couple of day ago Roy Moore formed the requisite “exploratory committee” in preparation to run for President of the United States.  During his interview with ChristianPost.com he did not discuss the high unemployment rate, the wars in Iraq and Afhganistan, the national debt or our crumbling roads.  He could not be bothered.  His mind was on bigger things.

“Forgetting in include God is the problem,” the former Judge said.  If he is elected, he said, he would fight to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and would defend the Defense of Marriage Act that President Obama’s Justice Department has determined to be unconstitutional.  This is no surprise because as a State Supreme Court Judge in Alabama, he want to considerable effort to install a Ten Commandments display in the Court building. 

What’s fun to comtemplate about a President Roy Moore is who he would appoint to the Cabinet and White House  positions.  Would he appoint economists to the Council of Economic Advisors, or, would he simply appoint Southern Baptist preachers and change its name to the Council on Tithing?

That a  President Moore would be bad for our country needs to be explained over and over again.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Christian Nationalism and Judge Roy Moore

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    Jon; I have to agree with you on this one. If one can’t distinguish between the spheres of church and state, one isn’ fit to serve in either, and both would suffer.

  2. Brad Campbell says:

    I think God would want “us” or our President to take care of our country. Take care of our own problems then try and help others in need around the world. We cannot be everything to everyone….

    Fix our debt crisis, get people to work, get out of these expensive wars and only spend money we have…..WOW!! that last one would be awesome……

  3. Dan says:

    Jon,

    According to CBS news, “Paige Moravetz and Haylee Fentress,
    Two Minnesota middle school students are dead, and the evidence suggests bullying led to their deaths. Haylee Fentress and Paige Moravetz, both 14, hung themselves together at a slumber parter at Fentress’ home last weekend.”

    Accoding to drugabuse.us, “Approximately 15 percent of 10th and 12th graders have used amphetamines. In a study at San Francisco General Hospital, 25 percent of seizures were found to be caused by amphetamine use. An estimated 1.8 million (0.8 percent) of youth age twelve and older are current users of cocaine.”

    Why soo many dismal stories and information? Do you suggest that by continuing to remove religion (Ten Commandments) from the schools will resolve any of the issues above? I’m sure schools in San Francisco don’t have the Ten Commandments posted in them. What do athiests propose that will offer hope to the young people. All I read about is how terrible religion is from the athiests but they never propose any solutions except remove religion. It’s like a broken record. Wouldn’t even an athiest agree that our country is in a state of moral decline? Go to youtube and type in “teen beat downs”. At lease Roy Moore is trying to come up with ways to stop our country’s moral decay.

    All satire is blind to the forces liberated by decay. Which is why total decay has absorbed the forces of satire.
    Theodor Adorno

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Dan 7:48 There is no measurement of “moral decline”. Thus, I cannot agree we are suffering from this. Also, there is no evidence that displaying the ten commandments to public places increases moral standards. Telling young people that wives are the property of their males does not seem to lift moral standards in any way that I can see.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Jon; Re. “Telling young people that wives are their property of their males does not seem to lift moral standards”. I don’t “property” here. “belonging to” is mutual in marriage. Realizing that these commandments that you reffer to have been rendered unimportant in today’s society, the result is to be expected. If these commandments were acknowledged to be valid, I would fully expect that there would be less divorce, and less “whoring around” by the general population,( young or old.)

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          oops, there should have been the word “see” in front of “property”. Thought it, didn’t type it.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Wanna 6:04 I was referring to the commandment that lists wives in with other properties, slaves, asses and so on. Now, I’ve had people here and elsewhere say that just because wives are listed among those things not to covet does not mean they are property. I beg to differ.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You are free to imply anything you wish. It is after all only your opinion.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 7:06 “…only your opinion.” There are so many opinions about the Bible one has to conclude that’s all there is.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; Your response does not surprise me. It’s not up to me to change your mind. There is a term; Captive of a Concept. It is applicable for those of your pursuasion. I wish you well.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 3:09 “Captive of a Concept”?? Let’s reconsider, here, who is “Captive of a Concept”? We have on the one hand people like myself who consider who use, to the best of our ability, rationality and science for decision making. Then, the others who make decisions about what to believe based on invisable being, sybolically drinking the blood and eating the flesh of their imaginary leader–now that’s not captive of concept I don’t know what is.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            My My Jon , you sound so judgemental and angry with someone who disagrees with you. I know that you will turn this around and make the same accusations. I said it first. na na na ya na na. Get the book. It’s written for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but just about everything in it conceptually applies to those in your camp.

          • entech says:

            Perhaps you might like to consider the concept of “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. On occasion or are deliberately offensive to provoke a response, just so that you can come up with some supercilious nonsense. And constantly invoking the name of Jehovah’s Witnesses does little for your credibility as an open minded individual.
            Mostly I enjoy what you have to say and find it quite well thought out, but sometimes ???
            David

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            David; the reason the Jw’s are so prominent in comparisons is that their system of “reason” is beyond purposefull distortion. I give the rank and file members a partial pass due to the fact that they are so greatly mislead by their leadership via mis-quotes, of sources, poor use of languages, and many other abuses of their key point, that being “reason”. They are a perfect example of errors presented by other groups. You will notice that I don’t use the Bible to debate your positions, as you and yours have shown to totally disregard any authority or validity of it. So I use other error resources to reveal the absurdity I see here from time to time.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            David Just a PS relating to your ” On occasion or are deliberately offensive to provoke a response”… All of my responses are based on the anti Christian nature of Jon’s comments, with some possible related tangents. If this was truly a blog site related to Atheists, and Freethinking Atheists, I would expect to see positive comments related to Atheism in a stand-alone light. Instead, there is presented the constant negativity of Christianity, and other faiths, but mostly Christianity. If Jon wants to show what good Atheism can/has done, fine. You wouldn’t hear from me. There are some aspects of Fundamentalism that I am in total disagreement, and I’m sure you are aware of that. I think I have said before that I am an “equal opportunity ticker offer”. Where abuse and error is manifested, everyone is “fair game” in my book. So don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. Almost everything I see on this site is a negative. For both Christianity and the Free Thinkers.

          • entech says:

            “as you and yours”, that is an interesting statement, what do you think mine is? The Judaic creation story is one of many and I am not sure of the validity of any of them. I see Christianity and Islam as over complicated off shoots. Atheists are just as bad, in fact you need each other! Without a common enemy Christian groups would destroy each other in internecine doctrinal conflict.
            David

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You and yours? Walks & squawks.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            David; Your “Christian groups would destroy each other in internecine doctrinal conflict”. One would think you are talking about the conflict between the Sunni and Sheite Muslums. No, with the exception of very rare instances, and then especially where government was involved with the conflict, the various Christian sects/ divisions have hardly “destroyed” each other. As a matter of fact, the various sects generally are in dialog with others in the Christian community. Consider even the Catholic Church and the open discussions with Protestants. The mergers of formerly disagreeing groups are more evidences of the desire to prevent disgrace to the Christian Church. A broad brush statement like that is rather uninformed of what the emphasis in the Church Universal. The real radicals in any religion like Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, and the Hale Bop comet group et al. have a tendency to self-destruct without much external help.

          • entech says:

            You know I am given to a little extravagance and hyperbole, perhaps destroy was a bit extreme. But it is true that for most of the first three quarters of the Christian era it was a unified idea, for a good part of it dissent was not permitted.
            Does the dialog towards ending disagreement include any that are even slightly tainted by the thoughts of Arius? Are only Trinitarians a legitimate part of the conversation?
            We need a broad brush because there is such a broad field to cover. You would know more than me about the early church, but it did have a wide range of ideas from Jesus being a man and adopted by God as his son when he was baptised to Arians who saw Jesus as a God but not the God, docetists where Jesus was the real God but that his appearance on earth was an illusion. And various pure monotheisms that had different emanations or aspects of one God.
            The pre-Paul church was purely Jewish, not to be preached to the Gentiles. Most Jews at the time did not think of Jesus as the Messiah, they were occupied by the Romans and their saviour would drive out the invaders and not “render unto Caesar”. Saul’s job was to eradicate the early Jewish Christian sects, after the Damascene conversion he changed the rules that were too hard for Gentiles and preached to everyone – the rest is history.
            How did the Trinity become the orthodox view? Actually I find the three in one the hardest to understand.
            David

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I have found years ago that to understand the timelines of the Christian church, many misunderstandings are answered.
            The anti trinitarians are not in the dialog, as they have strongly self-excluded themselves from any contact with any other groups.
            From early on even in the ancient church, there were errors, and into the early church, some of those errors grew into outright heresies. (sometimes by well intentioned I think, but beligerent, as in the case of arius). Arianism grew, and was becoming an influence thanks to the Visigoth incursions into Italy. There was a time, (it has been speculated) that a Pope was even Arian. There is even evidence that Constantine was baptised near his deathbed by an Arian Bishop. Not all of the early church fathers, Bishops, or Presbyters were 100% right all the time, but in time, the proponderance of the evidence in the totality of Scripture (Bible) revealed that the “Triunity of the Godhead” (my preferred term), was the most accurate definition of “God”. Some of the errors while shown to be error, yet retained became heresies. Many if not all of those early errors have reappeared from time to time, only in different applications and names to this very day. Today, the mysticism of Gnosticism has again reappeared after the discovery of buried manuscripts at Nag Hammadi. Nevertheless, due to the questionable nature of (again timelines), and the relationship of Kaballah to these writings, negate it as a valid bart of orthodoxy.
            I won’t bore you with a long list of Bible passages used to validate the term “Trinity”, but if you find any book/s of dogmatics from any of the major Christian denominations,(Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, baptist, etc. you should fine more than enough to help understand, or accept, a difficult to understand subject. In most dogmatics, you would find this subject under the heading of “The Doctrine of God”. If you do, or don’t accept it is up to you. I have examined this subject in great depth over many years, looking at it from several sides, and my conclusion that the “Triunity of the Godhead ” is the most compelling approach.
            As you are in Australia, you may have heard of Hermann Sasse. He has written some very fair in depth books on some of these subjects, and he may be helpfull.
            There is another publication, although difficult to find these days,(12 volumes) Mc Clintock and Strongs” Cyclopedia of Biblical , Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature”. (Old, but with almost unending content. You may need glasses, as the print is small). In it, there is a lot of external information (secular), to help fill in the holes.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            David; Another item that anti-trinitarians have difficulty in accepting, and that complicates the understanding of the Trinity is the “Dual Natures of Christ”. (the Hypostatic Union,) the union/relationship/communication of the Divine and Human natures of Christ. You may run into this as you examine the Trinity. Docetism had a problem with this too, as do the Christian Scientists through their relationship with Gnosticism.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting: it has been found difficult and left untried. G K Chesterton.

  4. Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

    From Wanna B Sure: “One would think you are talking about the conflict between the Sunni and Sheite Muslums. No, with the exception of very rare instances, and then especially where government was involved with the conflict, the various Christian sects/ divisions have hardly “destroyed” each other.”

    I don’t think that it is accurate to dismiss christian internal conflicts and purely political while pretending that the Sunni/Shia divide is something other than purely political.

    Besides, it’s no defense, being purely political. It is in fact a condemnation of the religion to insist that it’s conflict is political. In doing so you acknowledge that they’ve abdication of the faith’s supposed purpose, and replaced it with a naked desire for power.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Sea; I was including the period of time from the Middle Ages forward. To do less would be to deny history.

      • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

        Apparently I misread the news item yesterday about the Real IRA threatening Queen of England.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          huh?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Sea 8:36 Great observation. You are on top of your game.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; We know that Atheists are justifiably strong into scientific evidence. What are your thoughts on quantum mechanics, string theory, and paralell universes/diminsions?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; last comment entered into the 51% topic. Please go there as it is more relevent to the topic.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 1:04 I can’t say I know enough about these to comment. I know they are popular topics of discussion and are in the arts. Where any of them stand today in the world of science I cannot say.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Could you find out how the Atheists (including yourself) understand this, and get back to me?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Joh; You and Seaofstories could collaberate on this.

          • entech says:

            All I know is that science is still looking and open to change in the light of new evidence. Not you so much, but, certain religious thinkers have decided they know the truth and look for evidence to support the existing belief.

            My head is still spinning from the trinitarian readings!
            Just as a bit of humour the spell check says trinitarian is wrong and suggests Unitarian.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I found the “Dancing Wu Li Masters” a fascinating read years ago. I didn’t know that spell check was into theology, but only a system of posibilities and alternative answers to an unsure proposal.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Dave; Yes, some of the fundamentalists really got their pants in a wad with a knee-jerk reaction to the “God Particle” term.

          • entech says:

            Dancing Wu Li, The Tao of Physics, the Crack in the Cosmic Egg: all interesting interpretations and as you say fascinating. Preferably read while eating peanuts (or something else with a large pinch of Salt)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>