Very interesting interview.
Showing posts with label Dominionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dominionism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 12, 2025
Tuesday, September 30, 2025
CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 104th edition. Buy the Big Ugly or we'll shoot this government. An Epstein offer somebody can't refuse. Ignoring Trump's dementia, Not knowing the details, Religious and Cultural appropriation, Why Wounded Knee?
Buy the Big Ugly or we'll shoot this government.
Headline says it all:
It's a game of chicken.
If this all seems familiar, it's because we went through this once before with under the Trump regime. Chuck Schumer, in his political dotage, didn't really know what to do, which has characterized his leadership of Senate Democrats since Trump's illegitimacy in general. The basic hope was that Trump would suddenly start acting semi normal. Since that time, he's acted more abnormal.
The GOP rails against Democrats being Marxist, Socialist, Communists, Fascist, Monarchist, Muslims most of the time, but now wants them to pay nice on a continuing funding resolution that, they say, will give them seven more weeks to work out a budget. The last budget, The Big Ugly, is so unpopular that the GOP is working on changing its name.
The risk here is who the public blames the looming government shutdown on. Republicans are already trying to blame the Democrats, even though they refuse to give the concessions the Democrats are seeking. Trump, whose "art of the deal" style of business tends to be all pressure base, is responding by saying he'll fire Federal workers.
Quite a few members of the populist far right will cheer that, at least up until it impacts them.
Democrats are accusing Trump of acting like a mob boss, and not without reason. His negotiation style often seems to resemble one.
Somebody is getting an offer they can't refuse.
And speaking of that. . .
This is a nice look at a grim topic.
Trump isn't supporting releasing the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein as somebody is getting protected, and that somebody is afraid. We don't know who it is, but that's fairly clearly what's going on.
Somebody close enough to the Oval Office to impact it was screwing underaged girls provided by Epstein. Maybe it's a collection of somebodies. Or/and somebody is being blackmailed.
On this, efforts that seem designed to divert attention from this are getting just sillier.
Whoever the somebody is, they're wealthy.
The Democrats did release a new list of names of people who were pondered as flight passengers to Epstein Island, which included Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon. Musk has denied every going there, and his denial is likely completely backed up. It may be the case than none of these individuals went there, or if they did, they didn't do any kiddie diddling.
Still, it's clear that Epstein got rich as a procurer and it's nearly impossible to believe that everyone who went there didn't know something was going on. Epstein was targeting the rich. The video claims he was blackmailing them. Somebody is being protected right now, or perhaps blackmailed.
More and more unsound
Robert Reich posted this item the other day
Having seen dementia up close, I keep wondering the same thing. Trump is increasingly demented.
Have you ever been in the house of a demented person? It's demented. And that's what's occurring to our entire government right now.
Again: Why isn’t the media reporting on Trump’s growing dementia?
Trump’s increasingly bizarre behavior can no longer be attributed to a calculated “strategy.”
We are on increasingly dangerous territory. Those on the right largely want to keep claiming that we're just not used to Trump's unconventional management style, which is correct as he's slipping into dementia and we haven't had to contend with that in any fashion since Ronald Reagan, who was demonstrating signs of it in his last term. Reagan seemed ancient at 77, two years younger than Trump is now, when he left office.
A sign that we're in a dangerous area is the increasingly obvious fact that other people are suddenly really prominent in a way that they were not before. Steven Miller is an example. Miller is impossible to like but he's now very much in the forefront. J. D. Vance has reemerged quite a bit as well.
Some have asserted that in Reagan's decline Nancy Reagan took over some of his roles behind the scenes. This definitely happened when Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and Edith stepped up to the plate. As Franklin Roosevelt declined nothing like that happened, but then he didn't have mental lapses.
We can be rest assured that Melania isn't going to step in. The question is who is, and what are they doing right now.
Stake Center Shooting
We've become so acclimated to bizarre murders that it seems the news on the LDS Stake Center shooting in Grand Blanc, Michigan, has already cycled. Maybe it should have, as stories like this are local stories.
While we really ought not to notice it, we'll go ahead and note anyhow that in stories involving the LDS the Press, and politicians, clearly shows it knows nearly nothing about them. Almost all the Press reported the attack as being on a church, which isn't the way the Mormons characterize this, the most common variety of their religious structures. That probably doesn't matter but it'd be sort of like calling a synagogue or a mosque a church.
Some politicians were quick to claim it demonstrated increasing violence against Christians, which they've wanted to claim about the Kirk assassination as well. Trump, for instance, stated ""yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America". Kirk seems to have been murdered because he spoke against transgenderism, not for an expressed religious position, but I suppose you could argue that his opposition to transgenderism was based on his faith, although that would be a rather underdeveloped argument.
The thing is, at least right now, is that we seem to have no idea whatsoever why this guy attacked the Grand Blanc stake center. Mormons actually are not regarded as Christians by at least Apostolic Christians, who are the first and original Christians, as their theology doesn't support it. Mormons do assert they're Christians, but they certainly do not believe in a Trinitarian God like Christians do. Indeed, their belief is so significantly different that an informed Christian really can't regard them as Christians, which doesn't have much to do with how they view themselves.
Anyhow, if the location was picked out more or less at random, well then it might have been targeting Christians. Or it might be an act targeted specifically at Mormons for some reason. Or this guy may just have been flat out insane.
As an aside, however, it's interesting to note the degree to which outside of the West, and more particularly outside of the Jello Belt, most people sort of assume that the LDS are sort of just very clean dressing Protestants or something. This isn't casting aspersions, but it reminds me of the occasionally questions I'll hear directed as Jews by really ill informed Americans which assumes that Judaism is basically a Christian religion.
And the speculating probably ought to cease until we have an idea about what was going on, which might never occur.
The first storm
The first of the storms we wrote about on Sunday will hit Quantico today. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will address the flag officers.
Reporting so far is that Hegseth is just going to deliver a pep talk, in which case this is the most expensive example of boring people for no reason in the history of mankind. I continue to suspect that more than that will occur.
Probably not what Hegseth will sound like later today.
We want our symbols back, dude.
Speaking of the wannabe War Secretary, we've noted here before that Hegseth is all tatted up. Indeed, we noted that in an earlier version of this trailing thread, in which we stated:
We also very recently had an article on Christian Dominionism.
Because of that I'll note use of these symbols by far right Evangelicals, and frankly Protestants in general, is cultural appropriation. If you dig what these convey, look into what the originally conveyed and study up. You won't remain in the New Apostolic Reformation camp for long.
Persistent cultural appropriation.
Bai-De-Schluch-A-Ichin or Be-Ich-Schluck-Ich-In-Et-Tzuzzigi (Slender Silversmith) "Metal Beater," Navajo silversmith, photo by George Ben Wittick, 1883
While I'm at it, I'll note that there's a politician I'm aware of who consistently angles for the Navajo jewelry look.
I guess that's the person's look, its just so persistent, black clothing with turquoise jewelry, that it's hard not to notice. Perhaps its meant to look Western, which if that's the case, it sort of does, but it looks Southwestern. And a person in this era needs to be, or should be, careful about that as the gulf between the regions Republican politics and Reservation views is growing a great deal.
Indeed, I've been wondering if we'll see Lynette Gray Bull run again for office locally. My prediction is that if she does, Harriet Hageman will not debate her.
My further prediction is that if Hageman is challenged from the center of her party, which is admittedly on the decline, she'll suffer a whopping defeat.
Remember Wounded Knee
Finally, Wounded Knee has certainly been back in the news, thanks to Hegseth.
What's going on here anyhow? It seems like an effort to turn back the clock in a way, but to what point on the dial? 1915? 1945? 1955?
Finally, some really important news.
Blackpink member member Lisa went to the Louis Viton fashion show in Paris.
Why can't se have Congress people who look like Lisa from Blackpink? Shoot, if we're aiming for cultural appropriation, given Kawaii a chance.
And Bad Bunny will sing at the Stupor Bowl.
I'm sure I will not watch that, but a coworker of mine loves Bad Bunny. I don't know why he's a bad bunny, and I'm not particularly inclined to find out, but I guess the Hispanic singer has been avoiding the mainland US due to the Sturmabteilung so it's a big deal to his fans.
Postscript:
Watching Patton one too many times.
Behind the stage on which Hegseth and Trump were expected to speak was a large American flag, with banners showing the words "strength, service, America" and the various flags of the armed services on either side.
Oh geez, now Donald Babbler is making an appearance and the stage is seemingly decked out like the opener of the movie Patton.
This just piles absurdity upon absurdity.
My prediction is the Trump speech will sound something like this:
And Hegseth's? It'll be rah rah, but when it falls flat, the next speech will be:
On a matter of serious concern, however, this is extraordinarily weird, but then much of what this administration does is extraordinarily weird. Still there's a little reason to worry that this regime is concerned that the military's senior leaders are not going to endlessly back illegality.
I have to wonder what it's like to get a rah rah speech from a guy who, when his country was calling, when to the doctor's office. Oh well.
More Kirk
I meant to put this up above, but I thought this interesting:
Because I paid so little attention to Kirk when he was alive, I still don't know what to make of the post mortems
Fr. Joseph Krupp, whose podcast and blog I follow, was a Kirk fan and had an interesting episode on him. He stated that Kirk was basically a middle of the road Republican by most measures up until our current times, when middle of the road, in his view, is regarded as right wing extreme. I'd agree that Kirk's views on things like transgenderism are in fact pretty average, up until quite recently.
Having said that, I also heard Kirk say that somebody should raise the bail money to bail out the person who attack Nancy Pelosi's husband, back after he was attacked. That's a flat out evil thing to say.
At any rate, I really think Cardinal Dolan let things carry him away. Kirk a modern day St. Paul? I don't think so. I suppose Cardinal Dolan meant that Kirk was killed for saying things that are true but unpopular, but St. Paul never excused violence.
As noted here the other day, I think that Catholics have to be really careful about embracing figures from the Evangelical right, which Kirk was. Kirk was headed into Catholicism pretty clearly, but hadn't yet made it there. Assuming he was a Catholic figure may be assuming too much and embracing Dominionism is assuming too much.
Related threads:
Storm Warning.
Labels: 119th Congress, 2020s, 2025, Donald Trump, Government, Pete Hegseth, Predictions, The Second Trump Administration
Labels: American Dumpster Fire, Catholic, Christianity, Donald Trump, Hypocrisy, Kennedy, Mae Winchester Effect, Men, Politics, Protestant, religion, Republican Party, Tattoos, The Crusades, Traditionalism, Women, Wyoming, Zeitgeist
Labels: 1870s, 1876, 1890, 1890s, Army, Battle of Little Big Horn, Immigration, Personalities, Pete Hegseth, Philippine Insurrection, Spanish American War, The Frontier West, World War One, Wounded Knee
Last edition:
Sunday, September 28, 2025
A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to you by Project 2025 and the New Apostolic Reformation or the End of the Reformation?
When Trump was elected President, people, for the second time in a row, thought "oh he won't be so bad".
He's been as bad as expected, and worse.
A large segment of the politically aware American demographic is wondering, nearly every day, "what on Earth is going on here" as the Trump administration does something odd day after day.1 A second group, his core MAGA adherents, ignore the oddities and assume that a lot of the nonsense about lurking Marxist must be true, and assume that Trump is doing what needs to be done to save the Republic.
Well, Trump is demented, which explains a lot. But there's something else going on. And that something else is Christian Nationalism with a strong Protestant Dominionist focus.
Round Head flag, English Civil War. Takinginterest01, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. There were several varieties of this standard, as there was no standardized Parliamentarian flag.
Trump himself isn't really a sharp enough tool in the shed to do what's occurring. quite frankly, and at any point in his life, he probably wouldn't be interested enough to care anyway, as long has people are praising him and he seems to be getting what he wants.. To the extent he has any deep thoughts at all, and he likely doesn't, many of his real thoughts and desire run contrary to much of what's occurring. Trump, after all, is nothing much more than a wealthy playboy. He likes money, women, and has bad taste. M'eh.
But Trump was savvy enough to know he needed muscle and backing to get into office and moreover back into office. The intellectual muscle has been provided by far right populist, Protestant Evangelicals and their fellow travelers, the latter of which will live to regret ever being associated with the movement. Trump supporting Catholics are going to come to particularly regret traveling on this bus.
We've often said here that the United States is a Protestant country, culturally. It's so Protestant that people who aren't Protestant often are, culturally. Right now we have a really good example of that in the form of Stephen Wright, who is Jewish by heritage and perhaps by practice, but who in views is a raging Calvinist. It's pretty easy to find run of the mill, and even some non run of the mill, Catholics in the Trump fold who likewise culturally looked not to Rome, and not even to Luther, but to John Calvin.
The very first religiously significant group of English colonist in North America were religious dissenters, something very much worth remembering. The Puritans were Calvinists, not members of the dominant and official religion of England, the Church of England. Their landing in 1620 came in the context of an ongoing struggle in England over what England was to be, in terms of its faith. The Anglicans were in control at the time the Puritans left for North American shores and they were also suppressed for their religious radicalism in their native land. England was now solidly Protestant, sort of, with latent Catholicism seemingly having been beaten down with the peasants losing the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, but whether England would be radically Calvinist or sort of looking back at its Catholicism with the Church of England had not been determined. That question would provide much of the background to the English Civil War in which the parliament sought to depose an Anglican king, while being lead by a Calvinist who would be declared the Lord Protector. Ultimately, Calvinism didn't sit well with the English, and while parliament won the war, the crown would be restored and playboy king seated on the throne, who would convert to Catholicism sometimes prior to his death.
Calvinist would flee to North America upon the crown being restored.
The early English colonies in North America were frequently religiously intolerant. They were commonly sectarian and aggressively enforced the religion of their founders. The Puritans did not come to North America for religious freedom in the manner in which so often portrayed in grade school when I was a kid, but rather to avoid suppression under the crown and enforce their version of Christianity where they lived. People living in Puritan colonies had mandatory worship requirements at the local Calvinist church. It's not as if, if you lived in one, you could sit that out, or for that matter declare that you were a Catholic and would worship elsewhere.
Mary Dyer, a Quaker, was executed in Massachusetts for preaching her variant of Protestantism in that colony.
Christian Dominionist look back to the Puritans and the 1600s for their concept of what the state should be like. Not to the 1770s to 1790s. They may not all do so consciously, but they do. When they say that the United States is a Protestant nation, they mean its a Puritan one.
We all know, of course, that 1st Amendment protects the freedom of worship. That text states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When that law, and that's what it is, was added to the Constitution in 1791 the infant United States was much different that the loose group of sectarian colonies of the 1600s. Indeed, the mother country itself was much different than the one that had fought the English Civil War. Having endured that experience, and with its own history of sectarianism, what the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted was to avoid there being a Church of the United States, which if it had been created, would have been a branch of the Anglican Church. The amendment protected the right of various people to worship as they saw fit, or not at all. Modern conservatives have decried the Courts for decades about this amendment being misinterpreted, but it isn't. The Bill of Rights inserted religious tolerance ito the law.
Be that as it may, there's no doubt that the country remained a Christian nation. Other religions made an early appearance, setting aside native religions, very early on, but they were a distinct minority. A Jewish house of worship existed in New York, for example, as early as 1654. But overall, non Christian religions were practiced to a very small degree. And early patterns of settlement meant that the sectarian nature of the colonies continued to reflect itself into the early 1800s, and even into the mid 19th Century, although patterns if immigration began to heavily impact that, particularly the immigration of Catholics, who were largely detested by everybody else for a very long time. Be that as it may, American culture reflected Protestant Christianity well into the 20th Century and still does today.
This began to break down, as so much in our modern culture has, in the 1960s with the Baby Boom generation. Baby Boomers, or at least many of them, outright rejected many of the basic tenants of Christianity and brought in the really loose cultural Christianity, although with a leftward tilt, that we see today. One religion was a good as another, Christianity was basically "be nice". The warnings that St. Paul had given in his letters were ignored.
Things decayed.
On this site we've tracked some of that decay. While not meaning to spark a mass debate, we've noted the erosion of hetrosexual religious standards starting in the late 1940s and which were in full bloom before the Baby Boom generation with the massive success of Playboy magazine, and the concept of the loose moral big boob dimwit and sterile "girl next store", who was always ready to have sex. By the 1960s the erosion was becoming generational. By the 1970s it was becoming part of the culture and homosexuality began to openly emerge. Marriage started taking a big hit by the 1980s, with divorce becoming increasingly common by the late 1970s A culture in which divorce had been hard to obtain had evolved into one where marriage wasn't necessary at all, and ultimately into one where same sex couples could marry, the original meaning of marriage having been pretty much lost.
Enter (Evangelical) Christian Dominionism.
In 1975 Evangelicals Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright had a meeting in which they claimed to receive a divine message related to the culture. They were shortly thereafter joined in their infant movement by Presbyterian theologian Francis Schaeffer.. They claimed a mandate from the Devine to invade and achieve dominion over the "seven spheres" of society identified as family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. The New Apostolic Reformation is informed by this movement. And this is the Evangelical wing that is active in the Trump Administration and which have heavily influenced Christian Nationalist.
Dominionist, no matter what they may say, are not democratic. They are part of the Illiberal Democracy movement, and in the United States, they are the very core of it. Believing that the culture has been hopelessly corrupted in the seven spheres, they do not seek to convert by example, but to seize control of the culture, force a reformation of it, and bring about a Puritan nation on the model, sort of, of the original Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Puritan flag of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
This heavily aligns with the concept of Illiberal Democracy. You can have a democracy, the Dominionist and Illiberal Democrats hold, as long as it fully accepts the predominant cultural world outlook. No countering that is allowed.
Now, something careful observers will note is that this movement is now all over the European world. And some of the early Christian Nationalist are most definitely not Evangelical Christians. R. R. Reno is a convert to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church. Patrick Dineen is a Catholic, although he's notably moved away from the Republican Party and is now openly part of the American Solidarity Party. Rod Dreher was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and then converted to Orthodoxy. He's also now moved on from the Republican Party to the American Solidarity Party. The head of the Heritage Foundation, which is responsible for Project 2025, is Kevin Roberts, who is Catholic. And of course, J. D. Vance is a Catholic convert.
How do we make sense of this?
Well, one way in which we can makes sense of this, although not in the case of Dineen, Reno or Dreher, is to admit that a large segment of Catholics are heavily Protestantized, although this notably excludes younger Catholics and recent converts who most definitely are not. Gen. Jones Catholics and Gen. X Catholics were often very poorly catechized and therefore you can find quite a few who have gravitated to the far political right and who will state very Evangelical views of things which they have picked up from it, sometimes theological views that Catholics don't hold at all. Boomer Catholics went through the entire Spirit of Vatican Two era and are sometimes pretty beat up by it, and the younger ones experienced the Kennedy betrayal of religious adherence which caused many Catholics to follow suit. Some Boomer Catholics were on the very liberal Church end as well to the irritation of nearly everyone else in the Catholic sphere, who are glad to see their waning influence, but who contributed to the atmosphere the same way that poorly catechized late Boomer/Jones/Gen X Catholics were, but with a certain added massive whineyness on some occasions.
Anyhow, while it happened later than the birth of the Dominionist movement, intellectual and younger Catholics have moved towards an increased conservatism for quite some time, and it is now really visible in the Church. Overall it's a very good development, because it's so Catholic, and it reflects the view expressed in the letter to Diognetus more than any Seven Mountain tract. But the decay in the culture, which is particularly evident from the much more informed Catholic perspective, has caused some intellectuals, notably Dineen, Reno and Dreher, to despair of the culture and, in the case of of all three, to openly maintain that liberal democracy is an experiment that has failed.2
Integralism argues that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible. It formed out of the chaos of the late 19th Century in Europe and was strong in traditionally Catholic Romance language speaking countries. It never supported the concept of a state religion, but rather subordinating the state to the moral principles of Catholicism, rejecting morality from the state, and, in its European form, favoured Catholicism as the proclaimed religion of the state
Integralism really fell away from Catholic thinking as a discussed topic after World War Two for a variety of reasons, one being that modern liberal democracies quite being hostile to religion, which frankly most had been before the Second World War. Indeed, over time, the Church increasingly disapproved of clerics being in politics, and ultimately banned it. But in 2014, with an essay by Dinneen, it started to reappear. It's adherents claim that its the official position of the Church, but fail to acknowledge that on many things the church's "official" position can be pretty nuanced. Even prior to the Second World War it had always been the case that integralist took the view that imposing a Catholic view of things on a population couldn't be done on a non Catholic culture. In more recent years the Church has really emphasized that there's a civic duty to participate in elections, which while not rejecting integralism, does demonstrate a view accepting democracies and requiring Catholics to participate in their democracies.
The revival of integralism came about the same time, however, that dominionism started to gain steam, and for same, but not identical, reasons. Dineen's essay came out in 2014, but the following year the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and just as we predicted here, thing have really gone off the rails. Justice Kennedy's decision lead directly the populist outrage and right on to Donald Trump.
Obergefell was just a bridge too far for many Americans, but the drift towards societal libertinism it expressed had been going on for a long time. As we've noted, you can trace it back at least to 1953 and the release of Playboy, but savvy students of culture would point out that perhaps the signs were there as early as the very first movies, which took a run at pornography right from the onset until being reigned back in. Mass communications of all types, including mass media, had a big role in this no matter how much society attempted to restrain it. The moral shock of the First World War lead to the Roaring Twenties which foreshadowed the 1960s, interrupted only by the economic deprivation of the 1930s and the Second World War. At any rate, the decay had set in pretty deep even by the early 1970s.
Anyhow, Integralism and Dominionism are not the same thing. Pope Francis, noting a rising connection between Integralism and Christian Nationalist, approved a publication criticizing the drift in this direction. Catholics getting tied up in the far right Evangelical movement's goals are going to be in for a surprise when they learn that many in that community would not even regard Catholics as Christians. The re-Puritanization of the country would not be a good thing for Catholics, who after all hold a very broad view of Christianity rather than a nationalistic view of it, and who don't share the same millennialist views of things at all.
Dominionist, for their part, would be shocked to learn that Integralist hold a lot of things that Dominionist frankly accept as abhorrent. They may be united on abortion being evil and transgenderism being contrary to the moral law, but modern American Evangelical Christians would be surprised that the mass of the Catholic Church holds divorce to be a great moral wrong and condemns easy remarriage. They'd also be surprised to learn that Catholics condemn sex outside of marriage, including all sexual acts outside of the unitive type, to be grave moral wrongs, and that's the Catholic concern with homosexuality.
Rod Dreher, who seems to have joined the Christian Nationalist movement, or who had joined it (I'm not sure about his current position, given that he's a member of the American Solidarity Party), early on advocated a sort of walled in approach to societal moral decay in his book The Benedict Option. I criticized that approach here, and he seems to have retreated from what he seemed to indicate that book espoused. Anyhow, looking at the situation overall, this is a really dangerous moment in American history, but also one from which Western societies might emerge into something new, and better.
Much of this comes in the context of the collapse of the Reformation, and it stands to accelerate it. At the end of the day, holding Donald Trump as any sort of "Godly Man" is absurd. The direct attack on American democracy, which is occurring as we write, is highly dangerous, but probably won't succeed. Forces on the other side have taken forever to react, but are finally starting to, including a reassessment of the really radical and downright goofball positions the left has advocated for some time. The New Apostolic Reformation and Dominionist movement carrying the flag is causing "Christianity" to be condemned, but among thinking Christians is causing a reassessment of the Reformation churches and a massive movement away from them back into the Apostolic fold, as the theology of the Reformation churches simply can't be defended.
Roman society was reformed by Christianity, but not by operation of law, but by operation of the faithful members of the "one Catholic, Holy and Apostolic Church". We're in the death throws of the Reformation, of which this is all part. If that's right, it'll be a blessing in the end.
Footnotes:
1. In fairness, a lot of the odd things that Trump does is because he very obviously has dementia, which nobody is doing anything about. He's really not mentally stable enough to occupy the office he's in.
2. Evangelicals of the far right are particularly focused on transgenderism and homosexulaity, but just completely ignore almost all of the remaining actual Christian tenants on sex. Donald Trump, whom Evangelicals have really adopted, is a serial polygamist. White House "faith advisor" is on her third husband. Evangelical churches have pews fill up on Sundays with people who are living in what St. Paul very clearly condemned as states of mortal sin.
Related threads:
A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it means.
Labels: 1940 Wyoming Legislature, 1941, 1970s, Blog Mirror, Evolutionary Biology, Long Posts, Marriage, Monday at the bar, religion, Sex, Sexual Revolution, Social Issues, Sociology, The relationship between men and women
Labels: Agrarianism, Commentary, Conservatism, Democracy, Distributism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Populism, Progressivism, William F. Buckley
Labels: 2020s, 2022, Christian Nationalism, Conservatism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Politics, Populism, trends
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)