Hi, Fender,
You ought to know by now that I don’t generally say empty words.
agreed, I repsect your posts and opinions, even if I disagree.
First, I think we agree that using the religion as a means of political power is bad. I had to flee Russia because of it. I am living in a very unwilling exile in the Balkans because of it. But the term “Christian nationalism” is a weapon aimed against us.
Yes we can agree on all but the last sentence. Christian Nationalism, based on what I have seen, is an evangelical protestant movement toward a potentially dangerous theocracy/political power that we both agree is bad. google Christian Nationalism in Tennessee and see articles pro and con concerning the complete takeover of communities in this state.
Wikipedia is a hostile site. It is hostile to our faith, and only coincidentally supports some views you happen to like and agree with. You used the passive voice, which avoids saying who did the action. “Has been defined”. Yes. By our enemies, yours as well as mine. I reject and do not recognize the term, because it is meant to smear far more than people who use religion for political purposes. It is meant to silence Christian voices ALTOGETHER in the political arena, and would ultimately even silence you, the first time you cross them. It is a fake term. I am a language professional, and say that with the same authority as that of a doctor declaring cancer.
I'm not convinced of this argument against Wikipedia. That some topics are left leaning and that the site is open to almost any/all topics - I can certainly agree. I see no evidence of it being hostile toward Christianity. There are many informative pieces on the Church, history, even the saints. That speaks to its openness to all topics and, at least, an
attempt at fairness (even if it lacks).
Since you are a language professional, you know there is difference between nationalism and a patriotism.
Next, yes, I am partisan, on some things and to some extent. I am not neutral on the general question of Charlie Kirk, because I have listened to him for years, and see the vast net of lies thrown by our enemies to paint him as something he never was. But I AM fair, even to my enemies, and that means admitting good in them and their views and actions, when I see it.
I have purposely refrained from commenting on the deceased because, quite frankly, I had never heard of him prior to his murder.
I think you are partially right regarding the 2a and militias, you are not wrong in quoting what they did say, and yes, the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies, having recently fought one. But when you try to say that the purpose of the 2a was and remains specifically to protect the government, you lose the context of the fathers, that they were in fact turned on by their own government, the British government, and found it necessary to use arms against that (their own) government, and so trying to claim that the 2a was absolutely not about that is disingenuous, to say the least. The ultimate conception was to protect, not the government as such, but the people, as the Declaration makes clear.
It's interesting that you call me disingenuous for something I never said nor implied. (
the 2a was and remains..) That was your insertion.
I only spoke to the environment in which the second amendment was written and agreed upon, that is - it's construction and ratification. I quoted that line from your previous post when responding.
The 2A was written after the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had been dismissed (save for a detail for Gen/Pres Washington) and the prevailing opinion was one opposed to a standing army (for reasons already discussed).
The USA did not have an army 1789-91, when the bill of rights were written ratified.
This left the country with a problem; what do we do in an invasion?
Answer: the 2A. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Third Amendment is an extension of this same thought.
The first standing Army (post Continental Army) was a limited, three year provisional Army in 1798.
The"Eventual Army" was created by Congress in 1799. By 1812, the opposition to a standing Army no longer prevailed.
I only spoke from an originalist construct on the 2A.
The changes in our country as it applies to to a standing army and the development of our advanced military have only muddied the waters of 2A interpretation imho. Recent rulings and arguments want to either; dismiss the prerequisite phrase altogether OR apply a different definition to the word "regulated" than was applicable when the 2A was drafted.
In my mind neither view is correct - but that's way above my paygrade. If that makes me disingenuous in your mind, so be it. I don't think so.
Finally, if you ask any gun owner (my brother, for example), he will tell you that the background checks, red flags, etc, already exist. I don’t think we disagree on that, and might even agree on tightening controls and stiffening penalties for people who get around those laws.
I don't need to ask anyone else, I am a gun owner. I have two handguns, four rifles and a shotgun.
I know for a fact there are no red-flag laws in my state, though that could vary by state. In fact, our governor signed into state law
a prohibition on red flag laws.
I also know for a fact that, even though I own several guns, I have never, not once, been subjected to a background check concerning one.
I also know that none of my guns are registered, not one (more in a moment*).
There is no requirement concerning operation (license, nothing required even for open carry) nor is there any requirement for liability insurance - although a couple of my guns were listed (at one time) in my home owners policy.
When I was underage, I did have to pass a "Hunter's Safety" course to get a hunting license.
* One of my handguns was purchased in a major southern city suburb's "Big Gun and Knife Show." I went to spend an afternoon with my father (in his town). As we were leaving, a display caught my eye at one of the exhibitor booths; "380 Automatic $75"
I inquired, and was shown the piece and I decided to purchase. At this point I was asked, "Do you want to buy one from the shop or one from my personal collection?" What's the difference? "There's no difference in the guns, they're brand new, in the box, identical but if you buy from the shop it'll have to be registered and it'll take about 30 minutes for the background check." and? "If you buy one of these (lays hand on a stack of three or four boxes) you can be on your way. I gave him $75 cash, I have a receipt made to "cash sale" that I showed to the attendant on the way out. It was a perfectly legal sale.
The overarching thing, though, is that regarding Charlie Kirk, all you can do is say that you don’t like and disagree with a few of the things thatbhe said, none of which add up to justification of villainizing him. You may very well have people in your own parish who believe in the 2a as so many of us do. Would you deny them Communion? Surely you would condemn their brutal murder in spite of your disagreement.
Again, I have intentionally avoided comment on the deceased as an individual. I was unaware of him prior to his murder.
That said, Since then I find the veneration a little over the top (a lot actually) and I do find fault with some of his comments.
One comment in particular made a couple days after six of my neighbors (3 adults, 3 children - one adult was an acquaintance that I had worked with at an event) were killed in the Covenant School Shooting. I have seen several decry "context, context" but I see no context in which that one remark was acceptable.
I recently visited the Turning Point USA website - it has nothing regarding Christianity that I saw. It was recent, perhaps it has changed, but it consists of fundraising efforts and neo-liberal political points (
about us says,
"..promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.") I haven't seen anything to demonize him over, but the canonization seems out of place also, imho.
We do have parishoners from many political points of view in our parish. It's not my place to deny anyone Communion.
otoh, I would trust that if anyone attends our parish he/she would NOT be communed based merely on socio-political viewpoints.
Only Orthodox Christians receive Communion in our parish.
