On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:16:08 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/17/national-conservative-manifesto-edmund-burke-foundation-trumpism/
“National Conservatism,” as defined by the statement, doesn’t call for much change in facing the rather conspiratorial-sounding imperium. Rather, after the throat-clearing about globalism, the statement turns to its real concerns: the
internal operation of nations.
“Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private,” the authors declare. In regions of a nation where the
moral vision is corrupted by “immorality … national government must intervene energetically to restore order.”
Policies around family, immigration, race and education will be analyzed through this same prism — the national interest as defined by “Christianity and its moral vision.” Deviations (presumably “immoral”) will no doubt be corrected by
that same energetic national government.
It is tempting to point out that this supposedly new statement — with its faceless conspiracy of the globalist imperium, its exaltation of a cultural coherence that never existed, and its casual licensing of government power to enforce conformity
— has an awful lot in common with fascism."
In my opinion, the abortion reversal is going too far on the other direction.
Nevertheless, I don't agree with the fascism characterization.
At the end of the day, it is up to the members in congress to repeal and rewrite a new law wit every detail covered well, where even supreme court cannot do anything to turn against the law enacted by congress. The supreme court and court are meant
to interpret the law written for it. Hence, the law had to be written thoroughly with no room for misinterpretation, misinformation, disinformation, and discriminatory, etc., at all.
Not at all.
“Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private,” the authors declare. In regions of a nation where the moral
vision is corrupted by “immorality … national government must intervene energetically to restore order.”
By public life, it often meant school prayers (Christian version) before sport events and/or student initiated
prayer meeting in public school. What is wrong with that?
Similarly, Christian and Christmas decorations outside and inside public buildings. What is wrong with that?
Separation of Church and State has to be focused on physical and psychological harm. Some people don't
feel like it is not the reason to ban such religious display. IMO, many Americans get the meaning of Separation
of Church and State wrong.
Many Christians felt they are wronged by the liberals. What next? They fell pray to Christian Nationalism.
The movement has been brewing for some years. Currently, it is Christian Nationalists' turn to push the policy
toward its desired direction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opinion/dobbs-christian-nationalism.html
"A good place to gauge the spirit and intentions of the movement that brought us the radical majority on the
Supreme Court is the annual Road to Majority Policy Conference. At this year’s event, which took place last
month in Nashville, three clear trends were in evidence. First, the rhetoric of violence among movement leaders
appeared to have increased significantly from the already alarming levels I had observed in previous years.
Second, the theology of dominionism — that is, the belief that “right-thinking” Christians have a biblically
derived mandate to take control of all aspects of government and society — is now explicitly embraced. And
third, the movement’s key strategists were giddy about the legal arsenal that the Supreme Court had laid at
their feet as they anticipated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
They intend to use that arsenal — together with additional weaponry collected in cases like Carson v. Makin,
which requires state funding of religious schools if private, secular schools are also being funded; and
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which licenses religious proselytizing by public school officials — to
prosecute a war on individual rights, not merely in so-called red state legislatures but throughout the nation.
Although metaphors of battle are common enough in political gatherings, this year’s rhetoric appeared more
violent, more graphic and more tightly focused on fellow Americans, rather than on geopolitical foes."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)