How Does “Dying For Our Sins” Work?

“Brooks claims the whole idea of the Second Amendment was to arm citizens to take over the country if need be — and that not having enough guns around will spark the appetite of “dictators.”  That didn’t happen, however, during the 10-year ban on assault weapons that expired in late 2004.”

Today is Memorial Day and I am grieving for Jesus who died long ago – and is not still alive somewhere! He is dead! Live with it. You can keep your guns. Have a nice day!

Don’t you Christians think it’s high time you give PROOF Jesus is alive and sitting on a throne in heaven micromanaging everyone’s lives – and running losing democratic elections? Trump would have WON – if Jesus was on his side. THE FACT Trump lost – proves Jesus is dead – and has been for very long time. Jesus did not die for our sins – because Christians want to vote for a BIG SINNER again! Trump mocks Christianity. He is not a Christian.

How many Christians and non-Christians believe the reason most Republicans want to own and use guns – is to kill Democrats in the name of Jesus? They really don’t want OUR NATION back, because, what did they do when Trump was President for four years? Why didn’t the followers of Jesus declare America is a CHRISTIAN NATION? Would that be proof – JESUS IS NOT DEAD?

The Civil War began as a Religious Schism over Slavery. Many Southern Ministers gave glowing sermon on why THE RED STATES can keep their slaves. They claimed – Jesus wants them to own slaves. They lost the Battle of Holy Words – and went for their guns – and cannons. THESE ARE TRAITORS FOR JESUS – back for another ACT OF TREASON! Trump glorified the South and made them out to be – THE REAL VICTIMS – not Jesus! This is why Mo Brooks wants MO CIVIL WAR.

Men of God-Jesus are responsible for the all the Civil War Deaths! From now on, they are going to have to PROVE Jesus is alive, without being MUDEROUS TRAITORS!

Fuck Alabama! Nothing ever good came out of Alabama. I, and my kin, John Fremont – spit on the grave of Stephen Hale…..even though he had the guts to tell the world the true motive of The Southern National Traitors! Hitler may have read Hale’s evil words.

John Presco

Alabama in the American Civil War – Wikipedia

In December 1860, Stephen F. Hale, Alabama’s commissioner to Kentucky, wrote a letter to that state’s governor about Alabama’s justification for secession. In it, he voiced support for the Dred Scott decision, condemned the Republican Party for opposing slavery, and stated that the state’s secession, which would perpetuate slavery, was the only way to prevent prospective African-American freedmen, whom Hale referred to as “half-civilized Africans” from waging a race war (noting the 1804 Haiti massacre):

[I]n the South, where in many places the African race largely predominates, and, as a consequence, the two races would be continually pressing together, amalgamation, or the extermination of the one or the other, would be inevitable. Can Southern men submit to such degradation and ruin? God forbid that they should. … [T]he election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions – nothing less than an open declaration of war – for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.

— Stephen F. Hale, letter to the Governor of Kentucky, (December 1860).^[7]

Rep. Mo Brooks Says We Need Our Guns So We Can ‘Take Back’ The Nation (msn.com)

The Rise of Christian Nationalism | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

Rep. Mo Brooks Says We Need Our Guns So We Can ‘Take Back’ The Nation

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala,) is absolutely opposed to any new restrictions on guns — even regarding military-style assault weapons — because we need them to “take back” our government, he explained on Fox News Sunday.

Such action should only be undertaken in the event America becomes “dictatorial,” Brooks told host Sandra Smith.

Brooks absolutely, and completely baselessly, is convinced the last presidential election was “stolen” from Donald Trump — which could be considered dictatorial.

The lawmaker highlighted that slippery slope when he immediately went at it with Smith, and angrily defended his fantasy of a rigged election.

Smith pointed out “on the record” that there is still “no evidence or proof provided” of a rigged election. “Oh, no, that’s wrong. That is absolutely false,” said Brooks, before Smith corrected him yet again.

Brooks claims the whole idea of the Second Amendment was to arm citizens to take over the country if need be — and that not having enough guns around will spark the appetite of “dictators.”  That didn’t happen, however, during the 10-year ban on assault weapons that expired in late 2004.

Exactly what the framers had in mind concerning protecting a “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment is not as crystal clear as Brooks contends. Many believe the Constitution is addressing exactly what it says: A “well regulated militia” — and not a bunch of beer-swilling pals at a target range with hyper-deadly assault rifles.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

© Provided by HuffPostUNITED STATES – JUNE 15: Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., conducts a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on the Fire Fauci Act, which aims to strip the salary of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for his handling of COVID-19 on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

UNITED STATES – JUNE 15: Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., conducts a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on the Fire Fauci Act, which aims to strip the salary of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for his handling of COVID-19 on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Related…

• Weapons That Can Cause ‘Grave Damage’ Aren’t Sacred, Texas Bishop Fumes
• Don Trump Jr. Suggests Uvalde Shooter Could Have Killed 19 Kids With A ‘Bat’
• Trump Calls Gun Control Efforts ‘Grotesque’ At NRA Convention
• Ted Cruz Praises Guns To NRA Days After School Shooting

What Is ‘Christian Nationalism’ And Is It Connected To The Jan. 6 Insurrection?

123Shares

Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) THE QUESTION:

What is “Christian nationalism”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

“Christian nationalism” became common coinage in the U.S. fairly recently, usually raised by cultural liberals who view it with alarm, and often with “White” as an added adjective. The term is not generally embraced by those considered to be participants.

As journalist Samuel Goldman remarks, to describe something as Christian nationalism “is inevitably to reject it.”

The Merriam-Webster definition of plain “nationalism” is “loyalty and devotion to a nation” but adds this important wording, “especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

“Nationalism” is not the same as “patriotism,” the natural and benign love and loyalty toward one’s homeland that characterizes all peoples and countries, including huge numbers of non-nationalists on America’s religious left as well as the right. Nor is it the same thing as either political or religious conservatism but is instead a narrow faction within those broad populations.

The latest bid to shape public perceptions of the concept is a 63-page “Report on Christian Nationalism and the January 6 Insurrection,” issued last month by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

These two organizations may seem odd partners, since FFRF claims that “persons free from religion” have brought about most of the West’s “moral progress.” But FFRF shares the Baptist committee’s devotion to strict separation of church and state and opposition to “targeting of religious minorities” and “the politicization of houses of worship” as well as to Christian nationalism.

The BJCRL includes American Baptist churches, major Black Baptist conventions, some remaining “moderate” Southern Baptists and others, but the leaders of the huge and conservative Southern Baptist Convention withdrew support in 1991.

According to the BJCRL-FFRF report, Christian nationalism is “a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy.” It “relies on the mythological founding of the United States as a ‘Christian nation,’ singled out for God’s providence in order to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.” Further, it “demands a privileged place for Christianity in public life, buttressed by the active support of government at all levels.”

“Christian nationalism is not Christianity,” the definition concludes, but the movement consists of individual Christians and “relies on Christian imagery and language.”

Though not part of the definition as such, the report’s focus on the Jan. 6 mob attack at the U.S. Capitol associates elements of the movement with threats and actual acts of violence against people and property. The Jan. 6 riot targeted the Capitol police and the democratically elected U.S. vice president and members of Congress carrying out their constitutional duty of tabulating the ballots for president cast by state delegations to the Electoral College.

The report includes essays by critics of evangelical and “religious right” groups and is weakened by avoiding any writers who’d explain opposing views. But it has new and valuable research in two lavishly footnoted articles by FFRC attorney Andrew Seidel on religious participation on Jan. 6 and events that led up to it. These data demonstrate this was a fringe phenomenon in religious terms, with little or no involvement by the major organizations and leaders in conservative Protestantism and Catholicism.

BJCRL executive director Amanda Taylor leads a specialized offshoot, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, which is endorsed by, for example, top officials of mainline Protestant denominations and the National Council of Churches; liberal evangelicals Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne and Jim Wallis; and activist Catholic nun Simone Campbell.

CACN says that survey research shows those who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely than other Americans to demand “respect for national symbols and traditions”; fear “Muslims, Atheists and Jewish people”; “condone police violence toward Black Americans”; “hold anti-immigrant views”; and “believe that men are better suited for all leadership roles.”

A rather different assessment by Paul D. Miller, a Georgetown University professor and Southern Baptist consultant, was issued a month after the Capitol riot by Christianity Today, a voice of the evangelical “establishment” that grassroots activists typically spurn nowadays.

Here are some of his points.

CONTINUE READING: “What is Christian nationalism?” by Richard Ostling.

Richard Ostling is a former religion reporter for The Associated Press and former correspondent for TIME Magazine. This piece first appeared at Get Religion.