Understanding key differences: Christian conservatism vs. Christian nationalism

[BCP1928]

I agree with that definition.

Then grooming won't do as an example of what we were talking about. How about Obergefell v. Hodges. Don't both groups want to see it overturned?

 

[Vambram]

Then grooming won't do as an example of what we were talking about. How about Obergefell v. Hodges. Don't both groups want to see it overturned?

Some might. But I don't believe that most do. On that topic, what concerns the conservative groups the most is the grooming and exposure to sexualization towards children.

 

[BCP1928]

Some might. But I don't believe that most do. On that topic, what concerns the conservative groups the most is the grooming and exposure to sexualization towards children.

Grooming goes on in a wide variety of situations, Churches, clubs, even schools. Anywhere that adults and children are together. But people, left and right, are growing more interested in policing it. Even the churches are beginning to show active concern. But you were right to add "sexualization" to your example, because I think that is a separate issue. Christians have definite ideas about how children are to be guided to their sexual adulthood and want them to be made mandatory for all. So I still don't see that as a difference between the two groups.

 

[Vambram]

There is still a difference between the two groups. Go back and read the OP article. I am astounded that you compare the sexual grooming of children towards a completely different wide variety of situations. Why don't so many liberals seem NOT to care whether or not children are being exposed to stuff that kids should not be exposed to in school? Why must the LGBTQIA narratives be pushed upon kids in public school? Why should the rights of Christian parents about their children be over ruled by state governments, local governments, public school boards, and public teachers?

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is still a difference between the two groups. Go back and read the OP article. I am astounded that you compare the sexual grooming of children towards a completely different wide variety of situations.

Because teaching kids about gay people or trans people isn't "grooming" them. It's not even the definition of "grooming" that you agreed with in post #18. Your side is deliberately using that word to paint lgbtq people as pedophiles and predators.

Why don't so many liberals seem NOT to care whether or not children are being exposed to stuff that kids should not be exposed to in school? Why must the LGBTQIA narratives be pushed upon kids in public school?

Because many of us think that it's good that kids are made aware of the variety of people in our society and that it's good to not treat them as weird or strange because they're different from us.

Why should the rights of Christian parents about their children be over ruled by state governments, local governments, public school boards, and public teachers?

What rights are being overruled?

 

[JustOneWay]

Why don't so many liberals seem NOT to care whether or not children are being exposed to stuff that kids should not be exposed to in school? Why must the LGBTQIA narratives be pushed upon kids in public school?

It is done so with the parents permission. Why do the rightists not want the parents to to be able to make decisions for their own children?

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is still a difference between the two groups. Go back and read the OP article. I am astounded that you compare the sexual grooming of children towards a completely different wide variety of situations. Why don't so many liberals seem NOT to care whether or not children are being exposed to stuff that kids should not be exposed to in school? Why must the LGBTQIA narratives be pushed upon kids in public school? Why should the rights of Christian parents about their children be over ruled by state governments, local governments, public school boards, and public teachers?

On the subject of inappropriately sexualizing kids:

My daughter is 3. She's into many of the same things that other 3 year old girls are, including Disney. One of her current favorites is Sleeping Beauty, which I've now seen part of at least 50 times. If you're unfamiliar, part of the story is that Princess Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) is betrothed to a Prince Phillip, whom she has never met, but to whom she is to be married shortly after her 16th birthday. The night before her birthday, their fathers, King Hubert (Phillip's dad) and King Stefan are having dinner together, and at this dinner, King Hubert makes a number of comments about getting the two kids married ASAP so they can get to making grandbabies because, in his words, he and Stefan are "not getting any younger".

This is a guy joking about his son boinking an underaged girl to the father of the underaged girl. In a classic kids movie.

Another favorite of my daughter's, The Little Mermaid in which Ariel falls in love with and marries Prince Eric.

That pattern is repeated throughout many many Disney and Pixar movies:
Snow White: Awoken by a kiss from Prince Charming, whom she marries
Bell: Falls in love with, and presumably marries, the Beast
Cinderella: Falls in love with, and marries, Prince Charming
Jasmine: Falls in love with, and marries, Aladdin
Mulan: Falls in love with and marries Li Shang
Tiana: Falls in love with Prince Naveen (after some love triangle business)
Rapunzel: Marries Eugene Fitzherbert
Pocahontas: Falls in love with and marries John Smith
Anna: Falls in love with Prince Hans and then later Kristof (whom she subsequently marries)
Up: Carl and Ellie fall in love, get married, and live an entire life together.

Heterosexual love in the Disney/Pixar universe is not even exclusive to human characters. The Lady and the Tramp features two dogs falling in love and Wall-E features robots.

So, to bring it back around, how is none of that sexualizing kids (after all, hetero sex is sex, too), but teaching about lgbtq issues in schools is?

 

[rambot]

No. We don't.
Unless you are talking about conservatives wanting children to NOT be groomed by drag queens, transgender activists, and LGBTQ activists.

You mean they groom them to make them ready for youth pastors to actually commit the assaults?

There is still a difference between the two groups. Go back and read the OP article. I am astounded that you compare the sexual grooming of children towards a completely different wide variety of situations. Why don't so many liberals seem NOT to care whether or not children are being exposed to stuff that kids should not be exposed to in school? Why must the LGBTQIA narratives be pushed upon kids in public school? Why should the rights of Christian parents about their children be over ruled by state governments, local governments, public school boards, and public teachers?

Because you don't make a compelling case that gay people and transgender people should never ever ever be discussed or referenced; nor that they are dangerous. The only compelling argument I hear is that you want your kids to be safe; of course, a rational and complete "risk assessment" would show that your argument is moot since.....

Because there is no inherent physical, emotional, or mental danger for children to learn about the existence of gay people. Nor is there an inherent danger for the safety of children when gay people are around.

Because "parental rights" are not a subset of rights written as part of the Constitution.

 

[rambot]

On the subject of inappropriately sexualizing kids:

My daughter is 3. She's into many of the same things that other 3 year old girls are, including Disney. One of her current favorites is Sleeping Beauty, which I've now seen part of at least 50 times. If you're unfamiliar, part of the story is that Princess Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) is betrothed to a Prince Phillip, whom she has never met, but to whom she is to be married shortly after her 16th birthday. The night before her birthday, their fathers, King Hubert (Phillip's dad) and King Stefan are having dinner together, and at this dinner, King Hubert makes a number of comments about getting the two kids married ASAP so they can get to making grandbabies because, in his words, he and Stefan are "not getting any younger".

This is a guy joking about his son boinking an underaged girl to the father of the underaged girl. In a classic kids movie.

Another favorite of my daughter's, The Little Mermaid in which Ariel falls in love with and marries Prince Eric.

That pattern is repeated throughout many many Disney and Pixar movies:
Snow White: Awoken by a kiss from Prince Charming, whom she marries
Bell: Falls in love with, and presumably marries, the Beast
Cinderella: Falls in love with, and marries, Prince Charming
Jasmine: Falls in love with, and marries, Aladdin
Mulan: Falls in love with and marries Li Shang
Tiana: Falls in love with Prince Naveen (after some love triangle business)
Rapunzel: Marries Eugene Fitzherbert
Pocahontas: Falls in love with and marries John Smith
Anna: Falls in love with Prince Hans and then later Kristof (whom she subsequently marries)
Up: Carl and Ellie fall in love, get married, and live an entire life together.

Heterosexual love in the Disney/Pixar universe is not even exclusive to human characters. The Lady and the Tramp features two dogs falling in love and Wall-E features robots.

So, to bring it back around, how is none of that sexualizing kids (after all, hetero sex is sex, too), but teaching about lgbtq issues in schools is?

And that doesn't even reference the Miss child/teen pagents all over America (though with a HEAVVVY propensity in Southern [wha?] Conservative states

 

[iluvatar5150]

And that doesn't even reference the Miss child/teen pagents all over America (though with a HEAVVVY propensity in Southern [wha?] Conservative states

IME, the more conservative the Christian, the more okay they are with people getting married and having kids younger.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Christian nationalism's support is strongest in rural, conservative states​

In states including North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama and West Virginia, half or nearly half of residents support the view that Christians should dominate all areas of American society, including its laws, according to a new survey about the influence of Christian nationalism by the Public Religion Research Institute, based on interviews with more than 22,000 people.

Nationally, about three in ten Americans believe, or at least sympathize with, ideas that claim the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should draw from Christian values.
--
For the survey's purposes, whether people were Christian Nationalist adherents or sympathizers (or skeptics or rejectors) depends on the extent that they agree with the following 5 points:

• The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
• U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
• If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
• Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
• God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

 

[lifepsyop]

Christians who are repulsed by the notion of Christian Nationalism have their own version of political theology only they tend to have a sacralized view of democracy. They believe liberal democracy is a holy and sacred political structure for the ultimate good of humanity. They view the spirit of democracy as the holy spirit liberating the spirit of man from structures of authoritarianism. They view the late 20th century as a kind of divine inauguration of the liberal democratic order over the whole earth, not unlike a version of the Millenial Kingdom. They view the Statue of Liberty as a sacred icon.

 

[rambot]

Christians who are repulsed by the notion of Christian Nationalism have their own version of political theology only they tend to have a sacralized view of democracy.

Yes, we do like democracy! Democracy is pretty awesome. Do you not think it's awesome?

They believe liberal democracy is a holy and sacred political structure for the ultimate good of humanity.

I don't believe it is holy or sacred. But I think it is a BIG BIG help for a just version of government for the benefit of humanity.

So part points.

They view the spirit of democracy as the holy spirit liberating the spirit of man from structures of authoritarianism.

No. No, I don'tthink that I do.

They view the late 20th century as a kind of divine inauguration of the liberal democratic order over the whole earth, not unlike a version of the Millenial Kingdom.

No, I don't.

They view the Statue of Liberty as a sacred icon.

I don't

 

[RoBo1988]

Yes, we do like democracy! Democracy is pretty awesome. Do you not think it's awesome?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb, deciding what's for dinner.

 

[rambot]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb, deciding what's for dinner.

How would you expect others to take that metaphor in this context?

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, we do like democracy! Democracy is pretty awesome. Do you not think it's awesome?

I don't believe it is holy or sacred. But I think it is a BIG BIG help for a just version of government for the benefit of humanity.

Do you think Democracy is worth shedding blood for? Worth dropping bombs for? If your answer is yes, then yea, I think you have to admit to yourself that you believe it is sacred. Maybe it's something you are not comfortable admitting?

No, of course I do not think Democracy is awesome. Why would I? I am a Christian and understand the Will of the People is something that easily bends towards evil. What a strange thing to describe so enthusiastically as "awesome".... from a Christian perspective that is.

 

[rambot]

Do you think Democracy is worth shedding blood for?

Is there a system of government you'd prefer?

I'd rather shed blood for democracy than communism. Certainly more than tyranny, monarchy and pretty much any other -archy out there.

Is there a realistic alternative in your mind?

 

[lifepsyop]

Is there a system of government you'd prefer?

I'd rather shed blood for democracy than communism. Certainly more than tyranny, monarchy and pretty much any other -archy out there.

Is there a realistic alternative in your mind?

So that's a yes... you're willing to kill for democracy... I'd say it's fair to say you do in fact hold democracy as sacred in some regard, no?

I would not kill in the promotion of any ideology. I do believe that human life is sacred, so I might kill to protect that. But I certainly would not kill to promote a political system.

 

[rambot]

So that's a yes... you're willing to kill for democracy... I'd say it's fair to say you do in fact hold democracy as sacred in some regard, no?

I don't think you know what the word "sacred" means. I think it is important.

No, I absolutely do NOT hold it sacred.

I would not kill in the promotion of any ideology.

That's great. I have a lot of respect for the Amish and other pacifists. In all honesty, until only a few years ago, I didn't think I could ever kill anyone for any reason ever. And then I had children and realized there are things I would do to protect them that I would not have considered before they were born.
Democracy is not an "ideology" though. It's a functioning system of government; not a nebulous and ethereal idea.

I do believe that human life is sacred, so I might kill to protect that. But I certainly would not kill to promote a political system.

I'm not going to kill to PROMOTE any political system. But to protect it? That may be another story.

 

[RoBo1988]

How would you expect others to take that metaphor in this context?

Regardless of wether it's moral or not, the majority rules. Especially today, when the constitution is not used to regulate the will of the majority.

The USA sends representatives to represent their district with the constitution as a guardrail.