Task Force Publishes Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2026

Tropical Wilds said:
He was talking about prosecuting the nuns who were present at the insurrection. And if nuns who were identifiable were there, yes, they should be prosecuted.

While the militias get most of the attention for the Jan 6th insurrection, there were some religious and idological groups there as well including:

The Moonie church with the weird semi-automatic rifle obsession in PA run by the son of the founders of the Unification Church. (These are the guys with the golden AR-15s in the worship services and the crown of gilded bullets.)

TP USA.

The "New Tang Dynasty", a weird Chinese ex-pat group run by Miles Gao, pal of Steve Bannon.

AF (America First) / Groypers (Nick Fuentes fans/group)

Pommer · May 2, 2026

Tuur said:
By your argument, amputations are basic care, even though they are reserved for severe trauma or cases like gangrene. By your argument, the surgery my wife required was basic care even though it required not just a specialist, but a specialist she was referred to by the first specialist she saw.

Like it or not, abortion, like euthanasia and capital punishment, ends a life. How far away is Canada from requiring nurses assist in euthanasia and considering that basic care? Apparently we're already at the point where ending a life through an abortion is seen as something different than euthanasia.

Modern medicine has vastly extended the lives of people who, according to their DNA, would have died of this-or-that at younger ages. Their bodies aren’t wired to live extended times and can be prisons for elderly so situated. Giving these folk an option to alleviate this “condition“ will be “basic-care” in about 25 years.

40% of abortions are like this: Take this pill, take this other pill tomorrow and go to the emergency room if the bleeding doesn’t stop or there is significant pain.

Does it stop a “life”?
Yes.
Is it “murder”?
YMMV

7thKeeper · May 3, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Do we have nurse firing squads now?

I think you've just unlocked a new kink.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Playing up the fact that some of the people there were clergy members is appealing to the irrelevant.

I'm waiting for some here to justify it claiming they had bad habits.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

Tropical Wilds said:
He was talking about prosecuting the nuns who were present at the insurrection. And if nuns who were identifiable were there, yes, they should be prosecuted.

Biden DOJ fantasized about prosecuting habit-wearing nuns

Justice Department prosecutors under the Biden administration exchanged emails relishing the chance to prosecute Catholic nuns — particularly traditional nuns “who still wear the head habit.”

www.washingtontimes.com

Sorry to ruin your persecution fantasy.

"Persecution fantasy."

I've heard some in the last days of Segregation argue that it and they weren't racist, and it was all "fantasy." Apparently, they really believed it.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

Tropical Wilds said:
I’m not sure how to answer that given I don’t know what the surgery is. Could be, even though it requires a specialist. I had a balloon ablation which required a specialist, but it’s a basic procedure available across the country to treat a commonly accepted condition.

Your idea of what constitutes "basic" is pretty broad. For example, my father couldn't have had heart ablation at the nearest hospital. Instead, it had to be performed at another. Heart ablation is a known procedure, but hardly basic care.

For another medical condition later, he had to be transferred to yet another hospital, with the medical transport team thinking he might not make it. Since other family members could be subject to the same condition, I'm circumspect due to HIPA laws. Being my father died years ago, I doubt HIPA applies to him.

HIPA is why I don't go into detail about my wife's procedure. It was actually the second time she's had such a referral this year. She was to have undergone major surgery earlier this year and a specialist referred her to another specialist, but when that specialist did the prep, determined they had someone there who could do the procedure without major surgery. But the specialist who referred her couldn't do that locally. And keep in mind that here, "local" is a very broad term. For this latest condition, we knew it would take a specialist and hoped it could be done somewhat locally, but after evaluating it, he referred her to another specialist in the same field, and the surgery was done pretty far away for us.

The kicker in this last instance is that the specialist was able to perform the procedure as an outpatient. What made it non-basic care was the skill and equipment needed.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Does the inquisition and the crusades happen without religion?

That's an easy one. In the Soviet Union, they were politically oriented and called purges. In China, it was the Cultural Revolution, motivated by a secular ideology.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
No problem...

If someone showed up at my house with a gun and took something that I worked and sacrificed for or made me do something for them while getting nothing in return, that would be a negative experience that I wouldn't want to see repeated. (even if I'd never heard of any of the world religions)

That's not an argument against slavery. That's an argument against theft and is easily countered by an amusing parody song, author unknown:

"This land is my land,
This land's not your land.
This land is my land,
This land's not your land.
I've got a shotgun,
And you ain't got one.
This land belongs to only me."

And gets into something else that's not quite so easily countered by a purely secular argument, something that's pretty much been the way of things for most of human existence.

For slavery, the first moves toward abolition came from within a religious context. Catholicism had the concept that it wasn't right for Christians to enslave other Christians, then that it wasn't right for Christians to sell Christians as slaves to non-Christians. The argument was entirely religious. After a resurgence with the discovery of the New World, abolitionists in the West used religious arguments, including religious appeals to compassion.

Yet slavery was fairly common. I'm tempted to bring up Juan Ortiz as an example, but as a practice, slavery occurred across cultures and existed for thousands of years. And that presents a problem: Where a practice in a culture is seen as the way of things, it's hard to present an argument from within the confines of that culture that a practice is wrong.

So it is that some of the claimed practices the Roman emperor Tiberius wasn't so much what he did but that he did them excessively in the view of Roman critics. In Roman culture, they were not seen as wrong, and as such, from within Roman culture, it was nigh impossible to argue that such shouldn't have been done at all.

Tuur · May 3, 2026

Bradskii said:
What's hard about it? There are much better ways of ending a dispute. You don't need to refer to scripture. Although you are free to do so. As long as your argument isn't 'because it is written'.

Harder than I think you realize, because the arguments presented would be based on a culture that already regards dueling as wrong. It was seen as wrong even when it was accepted by some as a proper means of handling disputes as it was interpreted as murder. So it was that the fight that made Jim Bowie famous happened on a sandbar that the participants hoped had hazy judicial boundaries.

Let's say we could talk to a 12th Century pagan law speaker from a Northern European country and ask him to justify the holmgang. He might well present a reasoned argument that the holmgang prevents endless reprisals. Ask him if there are much better ways to end disputes, and he might well say that what goes to the holmgang cannot be resolved any other way. Ask him isn't murder wrong, and he may well lecture, based on the law, which he has memorized and recites at the start of the althing that the holmgang isn't murder. Protest that it's one person killing another and he might well sneer that this is a Christian argument. In the end there would be no way to persuade him that there is no place for the holmgang.

That's the case with us today. We're so steeped in the cultures that we're a part of that what we consider right and wrong is mostly derived from it. Where a religion has long been a part of that culture, it's going to have influence on all that live in it, whether they practice the religion or not. Culture, like language, can shape our very way of thinking, all without us realizing it.

Gene2memE · May 3, 2026

Tuur said:
Good luck finding a purely secular argument against, say, the holmgang.

Veil of Ignorance/Original Position works perfectly well.

Kantian universalist categorical imperative works too.

Stopped_lurking · May 3, 2026

Tuur said:
Harder than I think you realize, because the arguments presented would be based on a culture that already regards dueling as wrong. It was seen as wrong even when it was accepted by some as a proper means of handling disputes as it was interpreted as murder. So it was that the fight that made Jim Bowie famous happened on a sandbar that the participants hoped had hazy judicial boundaries.

Let's say we could talk to a 12th Century pagan law speaker from a Northern European country and ask him to justify the holmgang. He might well present a reasoned argument that the holmgang prevents endless reprisals. Ask him if there are much better ways to end disputes, and he might well say that what goes to the holmgang cannot be resolved any other way. Ask him isn't murder wrong, and he may well lecture, based on the law, which he has memorized and recites at the start of the althing that the holmgang isn't murder. Protest that it's one person killing another and he might well sneer that this is a Christian argument. In the end there would be no way to persuade him that there is no place for the holmgang.

A 12th century pagan lawspeaker justifying holmgang? It was abolished in the early 11th century on Iceland and in Norway, and in the late 11th century in Denmark. In Sweden it was still practised in the early 12th century, it is thought to be abolished in the late 12th century in landskapslagarna. Duels was ok until 1662 in Sweden.

Tuur said:
Good luck finding a purely secular argument against, say, the holmgang.

Secular arguments was brought forth both when it was forbidden on Iceland 1006 and in Norway 1014 (the argument was that the system was abused by professional duelers and berserkers, iirc), perhaps religion played a big part for those who were christians, but at that time not everybody was.

ETA: The countries would go some transformations until it would actually be correct to call them or think of them by their modern names.

Foamhead · May 3, 2026

RileyG said:
Ok. Your entitled to your perspective and that’s cool.

Peace

Dude, Bill Donohue tried to dismiss the widespread sexual abuse by priests. This included blaming the victims, saying they weren't abused because they were 16, said the church had a homosexual problem not a pedophile problem... as if the victims must have been gay. On top of that, many girls and kids far younger then 16 were abused as well, which he largely ignores.

But hey, I guess he's blunt speaks his mind, so it's still a net win?

Tropical Wilds · May 3, 2026

Tuur said:
"Persecution fantasy."

I've heard some in the last days of Segregation argue that it and they weren't racist, and it was all "fantasy." Apparently, they really believed it.

What on earth are you talking about.

Tropical Wilds · May 3, 2026

Tuur said:
Your idea of what constitutes "basic" is pretty broad. For example, my father couldn't have had heart ablation at the nearest hospital. Instead, it had to be performed at another. Heart ablation is a known procedure, but hardly basic care.

Yes, because that is basic care for cardiology so you have to go to a surgical cardiologist. What you’re arguing is “Bananas aren’t basic foods because I went to Wendy’s and they didn’t have it. Then I went to Jiffy Lube and asked them to change my brake pads and fix my broken window, they said they can’t, I need a mechanic, so that means fixing windows and brakes isn’t basic care maintenance for people who own a car.”

Tuur said:
For another medical condition later, he had to be transferred to yet another hospital, with the medical transport team thinking he might not make it. Since other family members could be subject to the same condition, I'm circumspect due to HIPA laws. Being my father died years ago, I doubt HIPA applies to him.

HIPAA goes beyond death. Your information is protected in perpetuity.

Tuur said:
HIPA is why I don't go into detail about my wife's procedure. It was actually the second time she's had such a referral this year. She was to have undergone major surgery earlier this year and a specialist referred her to another specialist, but when that specialist did the prep, determined they had someone there who could do the procedure without major surgery. But the specialist who referred her couldn't do that locally. And keep in mind that here, "local" is a very broad term. For this latest condition, we knew it would take a specialist and hoped it could be done somewhat locally, but after evaluating it, he referred her to another specialist in the same field, and the surgery was done pretty far away for us.

Well, without details I’m not sure how you think your example contributes to the discussion. It’s vague to the point of complete meaninglessness.

Tuur said:
The kicker in this last instance is that the specialist was able to perform the procedure as an outpatient. What made it non-basic care was the skill and equipment needed.

Which makes it the epitome of basic care, actually. You just were at Wendy’s asking for a mystery medical procedure to be performed.

Valletta · May 3, 2026

Let's stay on topic. One of the most contentious discussions in American politics was well summarized beginning on page 29 of the Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty:

B.The Biden Administration inappropriately equated disagreement over religious
convictions with affirmative harm.

"When acted upon, traditional Christian moral beliefs can fall into significant conflict with modern
American culture and generate significant policy and political disagreements. In many respects,
the current debates within American “culture wars”198 reveal that the disparate views hold
incompatible understandings of the source and nature of truth,199 the nature of human life and
personal autonomy,200 identity,201 and human relationships.202 Fewer matters hold greater personal
importance to each American, whether religious or not. And the federal government must fairly
govern all Americans, no matter their views on these topics.
Despite this responsibility, the Biden Administration asserted governmental interests in
antidiscrimination that it believed superseded the freedom of Christians to act in accordance with
their beliefs. For example, affirming gender self-identification, for example, has been described
by some as a matter of life or death.203 On the other hand, from the competing Christian worldview,
the ability to live according to God’s designs for humanity and teachings in all areas of life
implicates salvation and ongoing obedience to God.204"

Task Force Publishes Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty

He was talking about prosecuting the nuns who were present at the insurrection. And if nuns who were identifiable were there, yes, they should be prosecuted. While the militias get most of the attention for the Jan 6th insurrection, there were some religious and idological groups there as well...

www.christianforums.com

The government tried to impose secular values that were in contrast to commonly held Christian religious beliefs. For example, girls in locker rooms were being subjected to biological males undressing in front of them, etc. In addition, the Biden administration was targeting religious groups or those who spoke out against the state trying to control their religions.

Tropical Wilds · May 3, 2026

Valletta said:
Let's stay on topic. One of the most contentious discussions in American politics was well summarized beginning on page 29 of the Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty:

B.The Biden Administration inappropriately equated disagreement over religious
convictions with affirmative harm.

"When acted upon, traditional Christian moral beliefs can fall into significant conflict with modern
American culture and generate significant policy and political disagreements. In many respects,
the current debates within American “culture wars”198 reveal that the disparate views hold
incompatible understandings of the source and nature of truth,199 the nature of human life and
personal autonomy,200 identity,201 and human relationships.202 Fewer matters hold greater personal
importance to each American, whether religious or not. And the federal government must fairly
govern all Americans, no matter their views on these topics.
Despite this responsibility, the Biden Administration asserted governmental interests in
antidiscrimination that it believed superseded the freedom of Christians to act in accordance with
their beliefs. For example, affirming gender self-identification, for example, has been described
by some as a matter of life or death.203 On the other hand, from the competing Christian worldview,
the ability to live according to God’s designs for humanity and teachings in all areas of life
implicates salvation and ongoing obedience to God.204"

Task Force Publishes Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty

He was talking about prosecuting the nuns who were present at the insurrection. And if nuns who were identifiable were there, yes, they should be prosecuted. While the militias get most of the attention for the Jan 6th insurrection, there were some religious and idological groups there as well...

www.christianforums.com

The government tried to impose secular values that were in contrast to commonly held Christian religious beliefs. For example, girls in locker rooms were being subjected to biological males undressing in front of them, etc. In addition, the Biden administration was targeting religious groups or those who spoke out against the state trying to control their religions.

Nonsense. It’s just people deciding that their choice to be a particular brand of Christianity is everybody else’s job to match or adhere to, then say it’s violating their rights when people don’t kowtow to their demands.

You want to be an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQA, anti-science, anti-vaccine person who’s made the government a branch of their religious practice? Good for you. Go ahead. But don’t expect is to follow along.

Hans Blaster · May 3, 2026

Tuur said:
I'm waiting for some here to justify it claiming they had bad habits.

That's nun of my problem.

Valletta · May 3, 2026

Tropical Wilds said:
Nonsense. It’s just people deciding that their choice to be a particular brand of Christianity is everybody else’s job to match or adhere to, then say it’s violating their rights when people don’t kowtow to their demands.

You want to be an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQA, anti-science, anti-vaccine person who’s made the government a branch of their religious practice? Good for you. Go ahead. But don’t expect is to follow along.

No, that God created two sexes, male and female, is well accepted among Christians. Putting biological men in a girls' locker room is an attack on Christianity.

RocksInMyHead · May 3, 2026

Valletta said:
No, that God created two sexes, male and female, is well accepted among Christians. Putting biological men in a girls' locker room is an attack on Christianity.

Q.E.D.

Elongated said:
American Christians confuse inconveniences with persecution.

RileyG · May 3, 2026

Foamhead said:
Dude, Bill Donohue tried to dismiss the widespread sexual abuse by priests. This included blaming the victims, saying they weren't abused because they were 16, said the church had a homosexual problem not a pedophile problem... as if the victims must have been gay. On top of that, many girls and kids far younger then 16 were abused as well, which he largely ignores.

But hey, I guess he's blunt speaks his mind, so it's still a net win?

Yes. The sexual abuse scandal was mostly a homosexual problem. That’s a fact. Girls were abused too, but a majority were teen boys and young men.

Task Force Publishes Report on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias and Restoring Religious Liberty

Reconstruction 3 will come

Future History Slab Carver

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

I like water

Queen of Cups

Queen of Cups

Well-Known Member

Queen of Cups

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Veteran

Similar threads