I mean, come on... the fact that they have divided the world into US and THEM and the US fucking hate the rest of us THEM and want to murder all of us THEM in their ideal "kingdom" should be rather obvious by now.
They want a tyranny run by themselves with complete control of everything.
They truly despise the American Constitution and think liberty and human rights should only apply to their group.
The REAL problem is working out who falls into the "US" category and who falls into the "THEM" category. This is what I was referring to in my first comment here. The debate and argument would be interminable.
And a massive reason why Mohler and the rest of the wanna be theocrats should NEVER get their way.
Of all the forms of government humans have dreamed up, none is worse than theocracy. People who support such lunacy always assume it will be their particular tribe calling the shots for everyone else. Blasphemy is a victimless crime and an accusation theists use when they’re losing an argument.
Yup, they always believe it'll be *them* making and enforcing the rules. A bit OT, but my 12th grade governent class disabused all of the students of the notion that that might be good practice. We were assigned to write a governing document for a political entity. It could be a city, state, country, world; the teacher told us there was only one rule: you don't get to know who you'll be in that place. This was in *1970*, and, yes, the Veil of Ignorance idea was knocking around even at the high school level then, though I think Rawls didn't actually publish on it til a few years later. That was, good goddess, almost 60 years ago. These Xtian nationalists have no excuse for such ignorance now. None.
"But but 'separation of church and state' isn't in the constitution!" Sure, Jan. Just because the phrase isn't there doesn't mean the principle is absent. I am not surprised that Mohler is using the same tactic to force his religion in his hypothetical news constitution.
I typed the same thing almost verbatim when there were no comments visible. No sooner did I post it then there were over a dozen comments with yours leading the way so I deleted mine.
"Christian Post Executive Editor Richard Land, the former president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denounced the comments in his own article, saying they quite literally went against Southern Baptist teachings."
At least Albert Mohler said the quiet part out loud? I appreciate that kind of forthcomingness. He clearly hasn’t thought any of it through, but he deserves a pat on the back and a lollipop.
Mohler and his kind have grown bold from Trump's "I can get away with ANYTHING" approach to government. Both parties are now discovering that stating untoward intentions publicly can and do have negative repercussions over time.
But it's not all bad news. Wide open mouths are better suited to receive FEET.
I’m cheering when they shoot themselves in the foot 🎉
It’s similar to anti-abortion activists exposing themselves and calling for the criminalization (even the death penalty) of people who have abortions. For too long have they hidden behind the theoretical hero of “protector of life”
Mohler is 66. He’s probably got another 10-15 years to see his fantasy come true, which means it’ll never come to fruition in his lifetime. Not because it can’t happen but because there will always be someone else narrowing the rules for who is and isn’t a Christian and deserving of full rights. And he’ll be pushed out for not being a good enough Christian.
That’s the problem with religion. They’re all a bunch of little cliques defining who can join their groups or what they have to do be in good standing.
And that’s why I’m an atheist. As Groucho Marx would say: “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.”
They believe that everyone has the same authoritarian impulse that they have. They are so afraid that we will do to them as they have done to us for centuries, when all we really want is for everyone to be able to enjoy the same freedoms. Expanding rights is not a zero sum game. To grant one group rights does not entail taking rights from a different group.
Mohler and the NatCs are forever crying a non-existent persecution of their religion in this country while they actively seek to truly persecute anyone not of their anthill on this planet.
Well, there was a constitution that declared itself as a nation under god in its preamble:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
There was also a European political party that promoted a policy of Positive Christianity in 1920:
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to have your doctrines reflect those advocating chattel slavery or a Holocaust. Also, limiting your view of Christianity to those expressions embracing trinitarianism excludes at least the LDS & JW Churches, unless that’s your point.
In other words, there should not be a religious test, except that there IS a religious test, and that test is whether or not any person in question AGREES WITH MOHLER. As for blasphemy, it would amount to any statement or writing that would be in conflict with the theocracy. Any one of us here can imagine the madness that would ensue from such a position. Specifically, just WHICH dogma and doctrine are the CORRECT ones and which aren't? The arguments and recriminations would be endless, as would the attempts to punish those who had the temerity to disagree.
Mohler has no idea how good he has it with a (relatively) secular government ... and he would likely never cop a clue until it was WAY too late.
Hemant frequently posts YouTube Shorts of his substack blogs, though they are typically not just rote repetitions of the blog text. You can almost certainly find them on his YouTube site.
I mean, come on... the fact that they have divided the world into US and THEM and the US fucking hate the rest of us THEM and want to murder all of us THEM in their ideal "kingdom" should be rather obvious by now.
They want a tyranny run by themselves with complete control of everything.
They truly despise the American Constitution and think liberty and human rights should only apply to their group.
The REAL problem is working out who falls into the "US" category and who falls into the "THEM" category. This is what I was referring to in my first comment here. The debate and argument would be interminable.
And a massive reason why Mohler and the rest of the wanna be theocrats should NEVER get their way.
Of all the forms of government humans have dreamed up, none is worse than theocracy. People who support such lunacy always assume it will be their particular tribe calling the shots for everyone else. Blasphemy is a victimless crime and an accusation theists use when they’re losing an argument.
Yup, they always believe it'll be *them* making and enforcing the rules. A bit OT, but my 12th grade governent class disabused all of the students of the notion that that might be good practice. We were assigned to write a governing document for a political entity. It could be a city, state, country, world; the teacher told us there was only one rule: you don't get to know who you'll be in that place. This was in *1970*, and, yes, the Veil of Ignorance idea was knocking around even at the high school level then, though I think Rawls didn't actually publish on it til a few years later. That was, good goddess, almost 60 years ago. These Xtian nationalists have no excuse for such ignorance now. None.
𝐻𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 “𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛’𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒, 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠.”
Looks like a religious test to me.
Our current Constitution bans religious tests for holding public office, and that sure sounds like church-state separation to me.
"But but 'separation of church and state' isn't in the constitution!" Sure, Jan. Just because the phrase isn't there doesn't mean the principle is absent. I am not surprised that Mohler is using the same tactic to force his religion in his hypothetical news constitution.
He is evidently delusional enough to think people would passively submit to it.
I typed the same thing almost verbatim when there were no comments visible. No sooner did I post it then there were over a dozen comments with yours leading the way so I deleted mine.
Knew that was going to happen.
That’s because the religion known as Christianity isn’t a religion.
"Christian Post Executive Editor Richard Land, the former president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denounced the comments in his own article, saying they quite literally went against Southern Baptist teachings."
SPLITTER!!!!!
At least Albert Mohler said the quiet part out loud? I appreciate that kind of forthcomingness. He clearly hasn’t thought any of it through, but he deserves a pat on the back and a lollipop.
Mohler and his kind have grown bold from Trump's "I can get away with ANYTHING" approach to government. Both parties are now discovering that stating untoward intentions publicly can and do have negative repercussions over time.
But it's not all bad news. Wide open mouths are better suited to receive FEET.
I’m cheering when they shoot themselves in the foot 🎉
It’s similar to anti-abortion activists exposing themselves and calling for the criminalization (even the death penalty) of people who have abortions. For too long have they hidden behind the theoretical hero of “protector of life”
You must cheer a lot these days! 😁
We already know what a Christian-based country would look like. It was the CSA.
And before that, we saw what xtian rule was like when were just a collections of Brit colonies before we became a country.
The Key Founders saw it, too. They didn't like what they saw and actively worked to avoid a repeat of it.
The Thirty Years War should have been lesson enough to dissuade anyone from wanting to promote any form of theocracy.
But then, Mohler clearly doesn't care much about history.
Modern Russia.
Disgusting. Churches are in business TO STAY IN BUSINESS.
Mohler is 66. He’s probably got another 10-15 years to see his fantasy come true, which means it’ll never come to fruition in his lifetime. Not because it can’t happen but because there will always be someone else narrowing the rules for who is and isn’t a Christian and deserving of full rights. And he’ll be pushed out for not being a good enough Christian.
That’s the problem with religion. They’re all a bunch of little cliques defining who can join their groups or what they have to do be in good standing.
And that’s why I’m an atheist. As Groucho Marx would say: “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.”
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑢𝑦𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠, 𝑦𝑒𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦’𝑑 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟.
𝐼’𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑡, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.
They believe that everyone has the same authoritarian impulse that they have. They are so afraid that we will do to them as they have done to us for centuries, when all we really want is for everyone to be able to enjoy the same freedoms. Expanding rights is not a zero sum game. To grant one group rights does not entail taking rights from a different group.
Except those who believe it is their right to force others to follow their religious doctrine.
"To grant one group rights does not entail taking rights from a different group."
Except for the right to keep slaves.
And the right to feel superior.
Let me simplify: a Christian version of Iran.
Mohler and the NatCs are forever crying a non-existent persecution of their religion in this country while they actively seek to truly persecute anyone not of their anthill on this planet.
Their endless hypocrisy makes me gag.
Well, there was a constitution that declared itself as a nation under god in its preamble:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
There was also a European political party that promoted a policy of Positive Christianity in 1920:
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to have your doctrines reflect those advocating chattel slavery or a Holocaust. Also, limiting your view of Christianity to those expressions embracing trinitarianism excludes at least the LDS & JW Churches, unless that’s your point.
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.6121177662.0787/fposter,small,wall_texture,square_product,600x600.jpg
𝐻𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 “𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛’𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒...
In other words, there should not be a religious test, except that there IS a religious test, and that test is whether or not any person in question AGREES WITH MOHLER. As for blasphemy, it would amount to any statement or writing that would be in conflict with the theocracy. Any one of us here can imagine the madness that would ensue from such a position. Specifically, just WHICH dogma and doctrine are the CORRECT ones and which aren't? The arguments and recriminations would be endless, as would the attempts to punish those who had the temerity to disagree.
Mohler has no idea how good he has it with a (relatively) secular government ... and he would likely never cop a clue until it was WAY too late.
It's not a religious test because it doesn't mandate one particular sect. He allows for both kinds of religion: Baptist and Pentecostal.
Please make audio available.
Hemant frequently posts YouTube Shorts of his substack blogs, though they are typically not just rote repetitions of the blog text. You can almost certainly find them on his YouTube site.
Al Mohler makes Jesus vomit every day.