A Christian response to "No Kings."

[Fervent]

Ok so US politics is deeply mixed with religion. Or the US is deeply mixed with religion. But I understand the difference with say Australia or maybe England or even Canada. Theres a long tradition of religion while there is also a strong independence which is based on the constitution of freedoms, rights and democracy.

It's not quite a US issue, but rather the nature of religions that express moral sentiments. Politics is, in a sense, a public negotiation about what social values the nation will exhibit, and at the heart of the matter is what authority is legitimate. If someone is religious, that's not something that can realistically be compartmentalized. There are no part-time Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or secular humanists. So it is inevitable that religion and politics are going to step on each others toes, unless one is purely subjected to the other.

Which are sort of transcedent truth principles we should all support and happen to align with Christian values. Even the freedom to hold alternative beliefs under freewill as a Christian must come to God freely but have the choice not to.

Sounds more like Enlightenment humanism than authentic apostolic teaching to me, but there's room for debate.

So even though we have different belief ideologies there are certain transcedent truth which we hold up as values or morals as the basis for society and the nation.

Bound to.

The problem I see is that under the right to hold different beliefs and morals it means all beliefs are welcome in the public square. The State never aligns with one belief religion or ideology over another. Yet I think this is unreal as we would not support say Sharia laws.

The state certainly does align with one set of beliefs or ideology over others. Pluralism is only theoretical, in practice states reflect dominant social philosophies of their day.

Nevertheless as rational and moral creatures we recognise some moral truths. The problem I see is what happens when both sides or maybe 3 or 4 ideological groups or parties both claim they are the truth. They represent the good of the nation and consitution.

Which moral truths are universally recognized?

Then why are more and more Jewish and Christians being targeted. Why is the rhetoric still similar to before the election against Trump. The same narratives that the opposing beliefs by TRump or Kirk supporters should be stopped and even shot down. One third of Uni students believe that violence is a legitimate means to stop others with oppsing beliefs they think are hateful.

Legitimizing political violence isn't new, and its more a reaction of fear at the authoritarian rhetoric of Trump and Christian nationalists in general that is creating that response. But the evil world is going to be evil, Christianity shouldn't be reactive and defensive...Christ said to repay evil with good, to pray for those who persecute us. The Christian nationalist rhetoric seems to be nothing more than an attempt to declare divine sanction for oppressive jingoistic behavior. It is, in my mind, a form of idolatry of the state.

They call KIrks, Trumps and all those who agree as hateful. So is this not cultivating a dangerous climate and thats why we are seeing an increase in violence and assassination attempts. Believe me there will be more. How many before the climate settles. How long before Jews and Christians are targets because Christian values seem to also align with what people say they hate.

The peace that Christians have enjoyed in America was bound to be a temporary reprieve. When Christ calls a man, he bid him come and die.

I think Christians and the church of Christ should be seperated and even insulated from the world and politics. Just go about seperately doing Christs stuff and examples and say very little. Though they also need to proclaim Christs truth and the gospel which is getting harder nowadays in the public square without being attacked. So maybe they are linked.

I don't think that's realistic, nor adviseable. A man doesn't light a lamp and hide it beneath a barrel.

 

[stevevw]

It's not quite a US issue, but rather the nature of religions that express moral sentiments. Politics is, in a sense, a public negotiation about what social values the nation will exhibit, and at the heart of the matter is what authority is legitimate. If someone is religious, that's not something that can realistically be compartmentalized. There are no part-time Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or secular humanists. So it is inevitable that religion and politics are going to step on each others toes, unless one is purely subjected to the other.

I like the analogy of 'stepping on each others toes'. It is like that. So you are saying that its inevitable that politics and relaigion will overlapp and conflict in society.

Because fundementally if its about morals and how society should ultimately be ordered then thats not just politics but actually morality or spiritual in that its about an ideological belief about what the world and reality is and how we should order ourselves within that world.

That is why protests and politics have become so personal and about life and death itself. I wonder if this is just a modern phenomena because of how the world is or has become in that all the news is about negative stuff all the time. Or this is a natural evolution of when a society that will ultimately come down to belief. About who is the god of this world.

Sounds more like Enlightenment humanism than authentic apostolic teaching to me, but there's room for debate.

It can be both though it seems that all truth stem back to biblical truth. You can point out truth principles that align with God in secular thinking without supporting the ideology behind it. That secular ideologies often align with Gods truth is no surprise and I think these truths stand on their own. They are not really the product of Enlightenment or historical ethics but natural truths we know of for just being humans and created by God.

In fact I think much of the truth principles in Constitutions, Declarations and HUman Rights stemmed from a time we were more biblically minded. Part of human and natural rights was that we were created in the image of God. Or had divine nature endowed by a creator of the universe.

This was a transcedent truth we use to base human worth and natural rights. That because they were endowed by a transcedent creator they were divine,. It acknowledge our spiritual and divine nature and that these natural rights could not be taken by humans based on their ideologies. Since this has been taken out we have a battle for who is god and what is the truth about human worth and rights.

So on the one hand there are independent truths morals we can all know which are reflected in the ideologies and politics. BUt without any transcedent basis beyond human ideas then it will inevitably conflict for whose ideology and truth is the way.

Bound to.

Yes

The state certainly does align with one set of beliefs or ideology over others. Pluralism is only theoretical, in practice states reflect dominant social philosophies of their day.

I agree

Which moral truths are universally recognized?

God put His laws in our hearts so its no surprise that they are universally recognised no matter what you call the ideology or philosophy that is theorising or proclaiming them.

Like the idea that human worth is beyond human ideas and that some transcedent basis is necessary otherwise we end up devaluing humans and fighting each other. But thats a hard one for atheists as there is not transcedent entity to ground morality and human worth. We as nations recognised this in our past. But now we reject it and thus a fight over who holds the truth to human worth and moral order.

Its a self evident and fullfilling truth of the ages which cannot be reasoned against and for which we have ample experiences of that show us this truth when we fail to uphold it.

It does not have to be the God of the bible. But it needs to be some transcedent entity that is worthy. But then there is only one truth and thats another debate. The point is this is a fundemental truth principle that comes from God and not humans who are fallible.

Legitimizing political violence isn't new, and its more a reaction of fear at the authoritarian rhetoric of Trump and Christian nationalists in general that is creating that response.

Yes I think the US is a unique nation in that they have a strong religious past and it is politicised. That a Christian political party can exist and actually do well. Or hold power based on being Christian. In some ways though Christianity is the Way as Christ said becoming politicised about Christianity as in trying to enforce it or any ideology is the very opposite. Christs Way was not the political or ideological way.

In saying that I do understand how Christian concerns can become political. Such as Christian organisations working in social welfare are often involved in advocating for the disadvantaged. Or speaking out of a policy is against their beliefs.

This is the challenge I think in the coming times. As mentioned earlier I think the earlier church did not get involved in politics or the secular ways. They actually insulated themselves to some degree when Paul kept reminding the church to stay away from such ideas. Holding church in secret and now making too much comotion.

But then going out into the world to preach the specific gospel. It was not politics but a simple good news repeated. Then also helping the poor often in quiet and creating the Christian community.

But the evil world is going to be evil, Christianity shouldn't be reactive and defensive..

Yes good way to put it. Though not too reactive lol. Maybe responsive. Sometimes reactive as in standing to Christs truth no matter what. Pointing out untruths if required. Which may mean saying nothing and showing Christs example to expose the evil.

Peter mentions that we should obey rulers and authorities. That just being Christ like in obedience and submission for good is enough to make the unjust look to God and expose the injustice.

.Christ said to repay evil with good, to pray for those who persecute us. The Christian nationalist rhetoric seems to be nothing more than an attempt to declare divine sanction for oppressive jingoistic behavior. It is, in my mind, a form of idolatry of the state.

I think in the US particulary but I also see it rising in other nations that politics and religion are becoming mixed. I mean the conflict in the middle east is religion full stop and not Christian. But most nations are conflicting over religious or ideological beliefs which are more or less religion.

Maybe this is the sign of the times as I mentioned earlier that the way we have cultivate society we have created the culture wars which fundementally are coming down to religion and ideological beliefs about how society and this world should be.

In some ways Christians fighting for Gods Kingdom on earth through politics is fighting to create a world kingdom and not Gods Kingdom. But at the same time there are other forces and principalities also fighting for this world.

Nows the time to shine Christ which is about another kind of Kingdom not of this world. Its the only way to differentiate.

The peace that Christians have enjoyed in America was bound to be a temporary reprieve. When Christ calls a man, he bid him come and die.

So do you think that Christians when called should stand form with Christ even if thats a political situation. We know that the world is what it is and theres no changing that. The world will progress until the end.

But if Christ is correct then like in the early church Christians will be persecuted. In the early church just preaching the gospel got you in trouble. Christians had to hide in many towns.

Where is the line. If the organisation you work for is promoting something against Christian beliefs do you quit. If Christians see an injustice that goes against their beliefs like abortion do they remain quiet.

I think in the old days the church was seperate and would give their position which held some respect. The church was always consulted at least. But now well its even hated.

I don't think that's realistic, nor adviseable. A man doesn't light a lamp and hide it beneath a barrel.

 

[stevevw]

I'm observing a protest against the undermining of the Constitution. The desire to not want a King is the same desire intent upon preserving the separation of powers and a representative government by the people and for the people.

Ok well maybe other people see it differently and don't think its that extreme. That Trump actually wants to be a King. The same people said him and Kirk were Hitlers and supported Nazis.

From what I have seen of the protests there were a fair number not just protesting about a King. But having signs supporting ANTIFA, equating Trump and Kirk as fascists and even calling for the stopping of those who support Trump and Kirks beliefs.

I don't think the protest reflected a protest about consitutional rights. Otherwise they would not be calling those who have a different belief fascists and want to deny their rights to hold those beliefs.

I don't see anyone at these protests claiming a fascist regime is stopping them from protesting. It would be disingenuous to mischaracterize that these people are claiming a fascist regime is stopping them from protesting and then criticize the legitimacy of their protests based on that mischaracterization.

Thats because I never characterised the protesters as saying that. I said that the narrative has been that Trump is a dictator, a Nazi and fascist. That the very fact that they are able to protest shows that there is no Nazi or fascist regime like they claim.

From what I have see there was a fair degree of this kind of narrative. I am sure most were good intentioned. But the whole iea of King reeks dictatorship and feeds the same narrative that has been told for 10 years now and its actually cultivating radicals of hate and division and even leading to violence.

What if I said the reality of the Trump administration is based on an unreality? Would you understand me?

No because we don't even know what is the reality you are speaking of. That is part of the problem. That all these subjective ideologies are being cited as reasons and they are not actually based in reality.

Heres a fundemental question. As far as I understand one of Trumps major policies was immigration. Was border security and stopping the floods of people coming over the border. There were tanglible evidence that this was a bad policy and harming the nation. He was voted in based on this policy. That is clear.

Now going about actually carrying that out will involve some degree of law enforcement. Are you saying none at all or that at least some difficult enforcement is going to be involved. Considering that we also have evidence that some of their people involved are organised criminals.

This is the reality --> There is a deception where people are being told in so many words that some are voting to make America great again and others are voting against making America great again. The actual meaning of what 'GREAT' entails is whatever Trump says it is since it is the Logo he pushes as his credo. It's not ideological.

You do realise this is a subjective and ideological belief. What do you say to all the other people who agree with Trump. Your more or less saying they are deluded.

This seems the very same thinking that lost them the election when they were calling Trump voters the same thing. Yet they rejected such ideas. What if they still believe the same. Do you double down and say they have been fooled. How do you know those protesting have not been fooled.

The corporate owned media is largely controlled by a handful of billionaires, and it is being used to shape public opinion. I'm pretty sure I can find people expressing sentiments like you are describing, but that doesn't mean it's an accurate depiction of the event.

From my point of view and looking into this I actually think the exact opposite was happening and still is to a degree and even the Left media has admitted that they were partisan to the Dems. See how the act same belief can be held by the opposing position. THis is all subjective and biased by political ideology rather than reality.

I am sure that both sides do it and its the nature of the beast today where media, narratives and words are the new reality. Though this seems to be coming to an end hopefully with more independents. But don't pretend that your on the side of reality and truth. I don't think either side are.

"If you think anyone's protest is legitimate, or that political action is legitimate, then this is not Christ". <-- This ends in a contradictory reasoning when compared to this --> "Sure if people are stepping over the line and abusing power then yes call them out".

Theres a difference between calling it out in the name of truth and not actually becoming politically about it. The Christian can call this out and proclaim a different kind of truth that does not align with any politics philosophically or ideologically.

I am pretty sure Christ spoke out against injustices. In fact He said anyone who dares harm the little children may as well tie a stone to them and drown in the sea. In fact the early church was rebuked for not looking after widows. Thats how the deacons began.

That's not what I see. I see a spiritual war where one must persevere in the faith that there is an incorruptible Love that is Eternal, and one will be persecuted by those who are ruled by deception. Therefore, all lies in the moral/immoral paradigm would serve to usurp from and subsequently undermine Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.

OK so if say secular ideology has one set of morals (usually relative) and Christians or the bible or Christ have a different set. More importantly that they have a different fundemental basis. One is based in God beyond humans and the other this world and by humans as their own gods.

So when these morals and you could say 'Metaphysical' beliefs clash what should Christians do. Should they speak out against the untruth for example if they see it as harmful to children for example. Or say a church is supporting say marriage counselling in traditional marriage and the State is against such ideas being allowed to exist in the public square.

Should they retreat to only the private sphere. What if the secular ideology sees this as not harmful and actually good. Where is the line. How active should Christians be. Is not the State already acting like a King in that it dictates who can exist in the public square and to what degree.

That's inaccurate.

Citizens United vs FEC was a case brought before the supreme court where a 5 to 4 ruling allowed unlimited amounts of dark money into campaign superPACs in support of the argument that to not do so was inhibiting free speech regardless of the precedent of limits set forth by the FEC. In essence it was a shift towards autocracy wherein both parties would ultimately end up having to compete for rich corporate donors in order to have a viable chance of winning an election.

Please note that the democratic appointed justices all voted against Citizens united and the Republican appointed justices all voted in favor of citizens united.

These were the justices who voted in favor of superPACS and for the move to autocracy:

• Anthony Kennedy (authored the majority opinion)
• John Roberts (Chief Justice)
• Antonin Scalia
• Samuel Alito
• Clarence Thomas

These were the four justices who voted in favor of the FEC and against the move towards autocracy.

• Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the principal dissent, arguing that corporations are not "We the People" and should therefore not have the same free speech rights of individuals. He warned that the ruling risked undermining the integrity of elected institutions by enabling disproportionate corporate influence on elections.
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent and famously criticized the decision as the Court’s worst under Chief Justice Roberts, emphasizing concerns about money’s outsized role in politics.
• Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented, sharing similar concerns about the decision's implications for political equality and the potential for corruption.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor

I was speaking more about how the Dems used lawfare to go after Trump and certain Christian and conservative groups and individuals. How they gas lighted the nation with Biden and selected the presidential candidate by a non democratic process. How they used the institutions to control people, the CIA ect. How they controlled media to only allow certain information and delete other ect ect ect. Its all on public record and even the media and many DEms admit this now.

Trumps only been in for a short time and as far as I can see he is doing exactly what he was voting in for. I think its a bit early though I am not US so I don't experience the political climate. Thats not saying Trump can become exactly the same. Both sides do it. They are influenced and biased towards their ideology. One siode says black and the other says white regardless of truth. Thats the way of the world.

In fact each cycle it gets worse and more polarised and extreme on both sides. Bot dark forces fighting in this world.

It's a fact that Trump is using his power to punish political opposition even corrupting the DOJ which is supposed to be apolitical. He also desires loyalty to him personally rather than to the constitution.

For example, Trump claims that he KNOWS the 2020 election was rigged and stolen by "democratic far left radicals" even though that has been debunked many times over. Nonetheless, if a person doesn't agree with his contention that the 2020 election was stolen from him, then that person cannot serve in his administration.

I think a lot can be said and the proof is in the pudding in that he accepted the reality and got on with things. Then came back and if he was so bad then why was he voted back in some overwhelmingly and actually gaining support. This speaks that the people were sick of the other parties failure and frankly lies such as Biden.

But also the lawfare in trying for years to frame Trump and even invent false narratives and then calpaign to undermine him and the government with on going smear campaign in opposition. So I don't think any side has the moral high ground. I don't think people are willing to put back the same administration they just rejected. Not this quick lol.

Donald Trump even signed an executive order specifically aimed at Chris Krebs involving the revocation of his security clearance and initiating an investigation into his official actions. Why? Because Krebs reported that the 2020 election was the most secure election in American history.

We've seen Trump's DOJ send people to a prison in El Salvador without any trial.

Trump fired the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics because the bureau released a jobs report showing the U.S. economy added 73,000 jobs, which was well below expectations, and which also revised May and June job gains downward by a combined 258,000 jobs.

More recently, Trump fired an AG who refused to bring charges against former head of the FBI James Comey.

I can see the rest is about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Honestly like I said earlier I think people create this boogyman in their own heads IMO psychologically. Its actually a modern phenomena due to postmodernism I think where reality is created by narratives and words. Tell yourself an dothers in words and it becomes the reality.

Or say it enough and you begin to believe its true. This is how the media works with fake news and some people get in a bubble and their word is created by what people say or experience.

For me, as a Christian, I am deeply bothered by the treatment of immigrants being documented by citizens. I keep thinking about Jesus saying when you saw me naked you clothed me and when you saw me hungry you fed me, and that what you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me.

Yes but we can do that without all the politics. In fact we do that despite both sides politics. If we waited for world politics to align with Christ we would never be able to act. We act independentlyof any politics. Though politics can overlap it is not the basis for why we help the needy.

Christ also said give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is Gods. So He knew there was a political system that ran society for its basics as would be needed for any large group of people living together. In fact I think this is fundementally Gods way. Why Peter said obey the rulers and authorities because they are Gods instruments.

We can speak out against injustice and falsehoods that may cross our paths. Not doing so is almost a sin. But we need to be tactful and navigate the world carefully. Certainly not get too political. I think some believe they can be Christian and political in this world. I don't think so. ITs too conflicted.

But heres the reality. Sooner or later and it seems to me sooner rather than later no matter whether Christians are political. Even when they are not and minding their own bussiness and doing good. They will be politicised from the world as the world will hate them.

In fact when a Christian is doing this Christ like work in helping the needy and being a good example and obedient many will hate them for this very reason. Not because of politics but because it reflects Christs truth which conflicts with their politics.

In the end the world will come looking for those who stand with Christ and example Him. We are either for Christ or not and Christians will be called more and more to declare their alligence and faith to God.

 

[Richard T]

I doubt these were from Idaho. They pay people and bus them in.

That would be a long bus trip and require lots of funds. I don't think many are happy that Qatar is going to have part of a base and train in Idaho.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No kings, like that thing between Jeroboam and Rehoboam.

1 Kings 12:16 was probably the most democratic passage in the age of kings.