Writes David Brooks, in "We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics" (NYT).
Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man... but Charlie Kirk is the one who was killed. He is no longer alive in this world and capable of acting or speaking to us. He is now as usable as political people want him to be.
Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible." I suppose anything is possible, but I would think that Christians are the last to call other people "irredeemable." And it seems to be the left who have been falling prey to the ideation that their opponents are "irredeemably evil." Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do.
పోస్ట్లు
139 కామెంట్లు:
“will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil….”
Lots of evidence to support that conclusion.
Maybe because they are proving themselves to BE evil??
An assassin killed Charlie Kirk explicitly because “some hate can’t be negotiated out”, and here is Brooks worried about “Christian nationalists” behaving like the assassin.
Norm MacDonald: "What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?"
None so blind as those who will not see.
He means that the right is using soap opera, the former territory of the left.
It always means idiocy, whichever side does it.
their opponents are irredeemably evil
Somebody make a case this is not the truest thing Brooks has written…
Democrats have been repetitively told "that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible" non-stop.
One of the shortcuts that people use to decide what is true is how easy it is to think it. Well repetition makes stuff easier to think, it's how you learn a foreign language, and it's how you are convinced that the people on the other side don't quite rise to the level of human. That's why the billionaires, who are almost all Democrats, have bought the media.
rhhardin said...
He means that the right is using soap opera, the former territory of the left. It always means idiocy, whichever side does it.
…maybe rhhardin would approve of their use of romcom?
’The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture.’
The real problem is that an unhinged lefty assassinated Kirk because the left constantly labels differing opinions as hate.
The term you're looking for is "projection". And it was Hillary Clinton who called all conservatives "irredeemable".
'He means that the right is using soap opera"
No he doesn't. He's using the tool of projection to support a narrative, that Republicans are violent. It could be that he has drunk down so much of the Democratic propaganda that Republicans are violent, despite the evidence, that it colors his thinking even when he is trying to be logical and reasonable.
If ever you are looking for wrongful analysis, David Brooks and/or The New York Times are always good options.
Civilization rejects the bothsidesism defense….
rehajm said...
“…maybe rhhardin would approve of their use of romcom?”
Yes, but casual, indiscriminate use of melodrama rises to the level of accusations of war crimes. We need clarity on the RoE here.
Maybe that’s why Secretary Hegseth is calling the GFOs together.
And Brooks is the house R or C at NYT.
True Christians do not view anyone as irredeemable. Brooks sticking his toe into this fray is amusing.
“I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.“
Perhaps Brooks is worried about his own safety. He’s separated himself from Republicans in this statement.
Democratic/National Socialism? Maybe, baby.
"irredeemably evil"? Is that anything like deplorable?
Evil or wicked solutions to "burdensome" problems? Moron, please, lose your religion, your DEIst (i.e. class-disordered or bloc ideologies) beliefs. #HateLovesAbortion
Because there's nothing more dangerous than a religion based on the teachings of Jesus. Just think how awful it would be to forgive one's enemies, bless those who curse you, heal the sick, give sight to the blind and all those other icky things He did and said.
Do you even bother to read your comment section? It is full of your right-wing buddies calling for mass imprisonment and murder of their opponents. I have told frequently that I deserve death. Trump himself has thrown gasoline on the fire by threatening anyone who even contributes to something Trump declare a "domestic terrorist group (something that doesn't exist in federal law) .
Brooks is a bitter clinger who hides his contempt for the "burdens" of deplorable persons beneath a punch drunk expression and urbane rhetoric.
Brooks is arguing for having faith and partisanship, but only in restrained, gentle amounts. Maybe he would prefer we would place our faith under a cover, or possibly a basket, so it's light might not shine as brightly.
"Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do."
That's a good description of projection.
Religion and Politics (RaP) a tap-tap.
Brooks:
"The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture."
The unrestrained faith of the radical leftists in the primacy of the Almighty State as lord and savior, and their rabid partisanship that engenders hatred toward anyone who won't dance to their tune, has already shown itself to be explosive.
Projection ain't just for movie theaters. The political pendulum swings because everything seems to logical and easy until it gets extended too far out into uselessness.
While Christian Nationalism may (or not) have been a concern 50+ years ago, left-wing messaging came to dominate US culture through control over Hollywood and TV. They should take a look at their own cartoonish portrayals of right-versus-wrong in movies that demand 3 acts and an epilogue.
Every simplistic 2-hour plot needs a hero and a villain, whereby "message films" from the late 1960s civil rights era through today focused on the rigid portrayal of females/black and brown/gays/weak people as heroes. The openly Christian "swords and sandals" films of the 1950s to 1960s would not be released today. The last generation of conservative movie stars allowed by Hollywood included John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Tom Cruise. White, heroic, and "good."
When Hollywood creates cartoonish plots, simpleminded followers accept that cartoonish plots are real. Hollywood thereby exaggerates issues and pushes pendulum swings harder.
No one to blame but themselves.
Gemini? American Virgo, beware the Scorpius.
The Twilight fringe is a faith in the emanations from the penumbra of secular society where wicked solutions are conceived.
Faith is a logical domain of trust.
After Will Smith slapped Chris Rock in front of almost everyone in the world, it is Chris Rock who needs to be admonished against overeating. What’s that you’re thinking Chris?
Brooks is [not] a crook with a hook and the look of a mook that would spook... a cook with a book in a nook.
"Do you even bother to read your comment section?"
And yet the gunfire seems to be coming in our direction.
The phrase "unrestrained faith" is a tell.
The binary perplexity of Automaton Intelligence (AI) is discernible creativity.
Does anybody even listen to the pants crease propagandist? No normies do but he fills a spot on the NY Times to pretend they have a house conservative.
ann, get out of madison and take a road trip?
you don't live in real america and the view from your outpost in a blue college town in a practically artificial world has left you blind. Stop bleating and get out and observe america offline today?
The insane right are converts from the left. They kept the insane but switched parties.
Misinforminimalism said..."The phrase "unrestrained faith" is a tell."
Brooks traded in his first wife for a newer model and then claimed he had also adopted the Christian faith.
The "true" right was the NR audience in the 70s. Bemused by the left. Some of them are still around. Buckley's obit for Hubert Humphrey would be a good example if it's still around.
David Brooks?
who, exactly, was he?
wasn't he that leftist guy that wrote about fantasizing about sucking O'Bama's cock right through his pants?
i'm NOT saying that homosexual democrats SHOULDN'T be allowed to voice their fantasies..
but i AM saying, WHY should Republican Christians care?
The "true right" could meet in a phone booth in most cities.
Christian Nationalists are largely imaginary. It's a classic motte-and-bailey argument whenever they are brought up. Leland recalls the same Norm MacDonald joke that I did - "imagine the backlash!" Brooks had a summer of religious experience, like a kid a church camp, and now thinks he is qualified to speak about religion and politics.
Yet another warning from a leftist- this one dressed up as a 1980s style conservative- that religious people on the right are dangerous and could be moved toward violence, even as religious people on the right are being attacked or killed by people on the self-righteous left.
I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.
Well, ya know, if only Republicans’ opponents didn’t do things like burn down cities, assassinate people who disagree with them on policy issues, turn mentally deranged habitual criminals loose on the public to stab people to death on mass transit, etc., etc., etc., then perhaps the “evil” tag would not stick so readily.
Just a thought.
The principles of the Pro-Choice religion are selectivity and opportunism exercised with liberal license on a progressive path followed by Democratic/dictatorial and National Socialists of DEIst thought, politically congruent deed, and redistributive change purpose. #HateLovesAbortion
When Brooks admits to being "one of those who fear" my best guess is he's using the word "fear" as some sort of term of art that means something like "disapprove of."
@Freder, don’t worry about the people making death threats at you. A successful predator never warns its prey.
it’s easy to fear your political opponents when you don’t know anything about them as Brooks apparently doesn’t Brooks may be fearful about all kinds of things, but I’m pretty sure that Christ isn’t a republican. What people seem to most fear about Christ is that he’ll look them in the eye in a spiritual sense and tell them they have to humble themselves and repent. Christ isn’t after your vote, he’s after your heart, and that’s what scares Brooks.
As the prophet Alma said concerning Christ, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, “ Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. Yea, come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely.”
Earlier in the the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi says the following of Christ, “ he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
The USA has never been a hardcore "conservative" country on a global relative ranking. It was founded by explorers, anti-monarchists (i.e., anti tradition), and religious outcasts. It allowed every flavor of Protestantism to flourish until secularism and Marxism became popular in the 20th century. And, Marxism is often described as a Christian offshoot or heresy.
Today's left-wing intellectualism lost its intellect as the dogmas of the 1960s took hold. It fell into knee-jerk emotionalism (i.e., heavily female, gay, and minority -- all with elevated risks of anxiety disorders). The intersectionalism and structural racism theses tacitly admit to the weakness of those affected, they ascribe blame away from individuals.
Strong, normal, and effective people become threats when one is weak, abnormal, and ineffective in life. The strong then become bogeymen, as the weak and ineffective can never figure out how to get better. Project and blame others. Project some more.
I fear that something "will lead many [Democrats] to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible. "
Wait! It already has happened.
Brooks point is clearly proven by all of the violence that Kirk's followers have visited on ... well, nobody, since Kirk's assassination.
Well, there is the category of "Invincible Ignorance": "Christians are the last to call other people 'irredeemable'".
Conservativism is a philosophy of moderation: pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitution that mitigates liberal progression of Democratict/dictatorial faith and prejudice.
David Brooks, the favorite concubine of the NYT. Don't stray too far from the harem, Dave, or you might lose that juicy gig.
"Christian Nationalism" is a convenient ‘bogeyman’ for the militant, noisy, atheist left, not generally shared by agnostics and searchers, but (ironically) increasingly common amongst the “Christian Left” of the rapidly fading Oldline Protestant churches.
The reality is abundantly clear – America IS, and always has been, an overwhelmingly **Christian** nation, even though not all its Founders were Christian. Current-era numbers vary a bit, but broadly 70-75 percent of the US population identify as Christians. No other nation in the world is even close to that number.
Other faiths account for about 6 percent, observant Jews being a bit over 2 percent, with Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims around 1 percent each. There is even a Zoroastrian temple within 25 km of where I sit. That’s what freedom of religion looks like.
Dominant Christianity, yet the US was the first nation in the world to proscribe any sort of established national religion. And here we are, in 2025, with a reasonably prominent speaker at the Kirk memorial being a practicing Hindu, as is the Vice President’s wife. Joe Lieberman came quite close to being elected Vice President a quarter-century ago.
“Separation of church and state” is widely accepted, despite some extremist applications of the principle, or extremist opposition thereto. Yet, given demographics, if the US is any sort of functionally democratic republic, its government will be overwhelmingly Christian in some form.
Th real question is how do you "separate church and state" when for some 15 percent of the population the STATE is their church.
I read this as stand down while the democrats pick us off one by one.
The only suffering Brooks fears is the result of even fewer Christians being willing to vote for the Democrats death cult.
The main problem for many is that people they disagree with have the right to vote. So they use whatever method they can to impede or dilute that. Both Christian nationalism and the opposition to it are the same in that way. The latter, in our era, of course is much more culturally promoted and tends toward violence. But both tend to be populated and led by sociopaths and narcissists who fan the flame of fear and rage.
Actual Christian nationalists are much much less common to the point of being negligible but as said by Bart Hall serve as a rage inducing bogeyman for pokiticians and those who get need some outrage to feel alive.
yeah brooksie is that proverbial fish on a bicycle,
when the John Brown Club is openly recruiting on a major uniiversity with the shooters logo, the problem isn't maga
This article is an example of the underlying problem. The Left today is primarily animated by two inferiority complexes. One is an intellectual inferiority complex, the second and more prominent is a moral inferiority complex. Broadly speaking, so not every person on the left but the left as a whole, wants to feel smart and virtuous. This article let's the Left ignore or distract itself from the very real enormity of what was done to Charlie Kirk and his family by a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Left. Similarly, Jimmy Kimmel's musing that the killer was really a MAGA person was something the Left could emotionally latch onto to stay in cocooned in their belief that they on the Left were the good guys. While it isn't universal there is a problem with bad, violent, and sometimes evil actors on the Left that the Left itself has a very hard time dealing with because doing so would also require the Left to acknowledge that they aren't necessarily the good guys. And the primary motivation for much of the Left is to feel like they are the good guys. Admitting wrongs sinks that feeling. There was, I think, a Munk debate where Jordan Peterson asked Michael Eric Dyson when does the Left go too far. Michael Eric Dyson was unable to say anything admitting to the Left going too far, because to do so would require him to acknowledge that the Left aren't always the good guys.
a woman as earnest as Charlie Kirk, Brooksie called a cancer,
I mean, I know Christians can twist Christianity to their own ends as effectively as adherents of any other religion. But it's remarkable, isn't it, how infrequently they actually do so, as compared with, oh, say, other religions of peace. It really seems that personal conversion to Christianity wreaks significant changes on people.
Over on X, since Kirk's assassination, a bunch of people who call themselves Jesus- or Christ-curious have been posting about their fears of what will happen if they take that last step into becoming Christian; they often cite fear that they'll have to change. Respondents always tell them not to worry about it - that they're already what Christ wants, yet also that they will change, as readily as breathing.
I'm a so-so Christian. I was born into Christianity and, aside from dabbling in agnosticism as a teen, never really left - so it's like a comfy sweater for me, rather than the Armor of God or a garment of sackcloth or anything else more dramatic. But when I do actually meditate on my faith and on God in Christ, I am different - I do forgive easily, almost automatically, and look for the Christ in others, and walk boldly through my life. Next step should be to spend more time in that mental frame, obviously - but even my so-so-ness keeps me from writing off anyone - and I do mean anyone - as irredeemable in the eyes of God even if I myself can't find a way to forgive (such as in the case of the rapists and murderers of 12 year old Jocelyn Nungaray).
Brooks’ contention that Kirk was a Christian Nationalist is just wrong.
It is evident to me that faith was at the center of his life while for a Christian Nationalist (and other identity based movements) the life is centered around the identity.
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
he saw one as the gateway to another,
If you think this is bad, wait'll it actually starts happening.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/27/us-news/rfk-jr-advisor-chased-assaulted-at-un-by-crazed-protestor-screaming-slut-and-free-palestine/ ah civility, word brooksie,
I confess. I, as a Christian, am contemplating violence. (Words are violence, you know.) I do not want Charlie Kirk's assassin to be executed. I want him to live the rest of his life behind bars with episodes of Charlie's podcasts, campus debates, etc., piped into his cell 16 hours a day. I will allow him to get some sleep.
there are times when repentance is sincere, see the Pope and Mahmet Ali Agca, of course the Pope survived,
Oh, shut up, Brooksie. Fall back and resume fellating teh Garthok.
I know he's not really worth fisking, for reasons I've spelled out
and hardin’s Doggie Diddling Philosopher Hour continuezzzz…
german philosophy, a poultice of ignorance topped by self importance,
I can’t wait until we get an NYT article from David French explaining how True Christian conservatives should embrace martyrdom because they sinned by voting for Trump.
Freder Frederson said...
Do you even bother to read your comment section? It is full of your right-wing buddies calling for mass imprisonment and murder of their opponents. I have told frequently that I deserve death. Trump himself has thrown gasoline on the fire by threatening anyone who even contributes to something Trump declare a "domestic terrorist group (something that doesn't exist in federal law)
Freder can't even read the comments section apparently.
Brooks is part of the elite consensus that humanity must choose between a global multicultural utopia managed by a class of credentialed experts where the only thing that is forbidden is to forbid or a world of nationalist and religious totalitarian regimes in a state of perpetual war. They believe that to prevent the latter and bring about the former, the people must be disenchanted of their strong beliefs and loyalties and accept being deprived of the solidarity of shared loves.
AMDG said...
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
Explain the dilemma. I think you are confused.
“I have told frequently that I deserve death.”
Being told to “jump in a lake” or “fuck off” is not the same thing, Fredo.
While it isn't universal there is a problem with bad, violent, and sometimes evil actors on the Left that the Left itself has a very hard time dealing with because doing so would also require the Left to acknowledge that they aren't necessarily the good guys. And the primary motivation for much of the Left is to feel like they are the good guys.
This is the problem, isn't it? And also, I speculate, why Christianity has become so right-coded. Conservatism accepts the fact that "all sin and fall short of the glory of God" - ourselves included. We know our own side can be bad actors; it doesn't shake our core to acknowledge that. An MLK can be a powerful force for good and still a terrible husband. People are imperfect and sinful and complex; the best ones strive all their lives to live up to something bigger and better than they can be on their own - but even they fail to become perfect.
The same doesn't seem to be true for progressives. Their version of morality is more Rousseauian: people are perfect, society corrupts. If one of their own commits a sin, they have to defend him or her vigorously because his or her sin is a reflection on the progressive's innate morality - but because people are in fact what they are, imperfect and sinful, no matter what they'd like to believe, that defense can't be "S/he didn't do the bad thing" but "You are a bad person for accusing him/her of doing the bad thing."
If you start from the premise that people are perfect (and need no recourse to anything bigger or better than themselves, only their feelings to guide them), then by definition anything you choose to do because it feels right to you is right and anything you choose not to do because it feels wrong to you is wrong. Hence - "Love is love" but we'll not talk about MAPs, "No human is illegal" but misgendering someone is because it hurts their feelings, "We follow the science" unless it's in opposition to something we really want to be true.
We have to be far more concerned about the religious left who
are a godless religious cult with an ever changing catechism. Bernie Saunders is the most religious member of Congress. Remember he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, one of the most religious societies the earth has ever seen. Solidarity was enforced on the street and in the media. Just like the lunatic left we see here today. Read 'The House of Government' for more on the Marxist/Leninist religious cult.
Oh no! It's "unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship". David Brooks wants to be our restrainer general.
just to be clear:
ANY ONE that opposes ANY THING the lefties want is a nazi.
it's OKAY to punch a nazi in the face
it's OKAY to stomp a nazi
it's OKAY to snipe a nazi
it's OKAY to kill a nazi's wife and children
ANY THING is OKAY to stop Nazis
https://duckduckgo.com/?origin=funnel_home_website&t=h_&q=punch+a+nazi&ia=web
The Nazi-Puncher's Dilemma | HuffPost Latest News
Is It OK To Punch a Nazi? We Asked Berkeley Students.
We Asked an Ethicist if It's OK to Punch Nazis in the Face - VICE
Brooks said: "unrestrained partisanship" -
like this:
The cowardly left built a hate-machine - then denied they built it. Democratics in power inspired and built the antifa-jihadi network of hate and assassination.
The left's terrorist inspiring words: Repeated daily.
“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace”. – Gov Pritzker(D)
"Trump is an existential threat to democracy"
"Trump is Hitler"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Trump is a King"
"Trump's supporters are fascists"
"Trump is a Nazi"
“Trump's supporters are Nazis"
"Trump is a dictator and he will end our democracy"
“Trump is an existential threat to democracy”
“Trump’s supporters are an existential threat to democracy”
“We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country." – Senator Chris Murphy(D)
“This fascist administration.. we are going to fight it” –AOC
Damn those dangerous Republicans! You kill just a FEW of them and they get all pissy about it. F'n Nazis.
isn't time for igna to weigh in on this?
or do we need to wake her from her dreams of Melania Trump be murdered?
The United States and Great Britain are where the first truly free and high trust societies were formed. There are several key points that were required to make this society:
1. They had to plan ahead for winter every year. This forced delay of gratification.
2. They had a religion that focused on the inherent virtue of the individual.
3. They had a decentralized religious organization.
This allowed for a society that had to think not just about accruing wealth but maintaining it for generations on an individual level.
The only religion in the world that is capable of producing a society like ours is Protestant Christianity.
Achilles said...
AMDG said...
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
Explain the dilemma. I think you are confused.
9/27/25, 9:18 AM
————————————-
Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions.
Kirk did not do this but it can muddy the message when you have an organization that is focused on both.
From the Kirk memorial the organization follow Erika Kirk’s plainly Christian message or Donald Trump’s political one. At the end of the day those two messages are incompatible.
they loath the nation as it was, they want to transform it, obama gave it his best try, as did his stalking horse,
AMDG -
said:
"Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions."
Not really.
He combined the morality of the Christian faith with the morality of non-leftist politics. So what? It's basic free speech.
The left combine their religious beliefs with politics all the time. SEE: Climate Change.
btw - show us an specific example of Kirk's Implications that his Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions.
Really. Do that.
one is charged to enforce the law, against violence, against other crimes
@Achilles The only religion in the world that is capable of producing a society like ours is Protestant Christianity.
Yes. Still, the East Asian countries have proven that #1 goes a long, long way in building systems that endure. China, Japan, and Korea had to deal with winter too -- they shifted to cultural and genetic homogeneity coupled with intelligence, cooperation, and conformity. There's not much freedom or variety, but boy are they good at structure, order, and technology!
Europe has always been likely to swing with the ideological winds and open to change (i.e., it was invaded from every direction and resettled many times over). The Protestants adopted the functional parts of Catholicism, but then let it slip away with Marxism, hedonism, science worship, wokism, and more.
Freder
You're not intellectually dangerous enough for anyone here to want to kill you.
Hmmmm…defining someone as Hitler or a group as Nazis is not defining them as irreversibly evil?
The Charlie Kirk Memorial was a large example of political v faith diversity. Many of the speakers spoke of God and Charlie's faith - but some speakers did not, as they didn't feel as comfortable doing so. It was all fine. Trump was Trump - he spoke more like a politician. I didn't like Trump's speech at all - but - I don't need to kill Trump to shut him up.
AMDG said...
Achilles said...
AMDG said...
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
Explain the dilemma. I think you are confused.
9/27/25, 9:18 AM
————————————-
Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions.
No. It means that when we set up rules for society we base those rules on the systems they will create and we aim for the results we desire. We build the system that allows the virtuous citizen to prosper.
Kirk did not do this but it can muddy the message when you have an organization that is focused on both.
The first 5 words are sufficient.
From the Kirk memorial the organization follow Erika Kirk’s plainly Christian message or Donald Trump’s political one. At the end of the day those two messages are incompatible.
Your statement actually highlights why you are wrong. There is no one position defined by Christian faith. Christian faith is individual in application and each citizen must be capable of thinking for themselves and how they will apply their faith. Donald and Erika both used fundamental Christian values to come to a decision on how to move forward on an individual level.
The magic is that they can disagree with each other, live together in the same society, both carry forward peacefully making the society better, and forgive each other their differences.
This is why Protestant Christianity is unique as a societal foundation and why a Country like the United States is only possible with this religion. Other religions like Hinduism or Secular Atheism or Catholicism will never produce societies as free and prosperous as Protestant Christianity.
Freder Frederson seems to think it is important (and damning) that there is no such thing as a "domestic terror organization" in federal law. As if that alone renders Trump's actions absurd. I think it is more important that there are "domestic terror organizations" out there in the real world.
not so long ago, the last regime was putting preachers in jail, for not affirming the pagan creed,
AMDG - Freedom and a just society built around Judeo-Christian morals is offensive to the collective left.
So they built an assassination culture. The left’s handmaids tale of manufactured hate and intolerance, is filled with anti-Christian bigotry. Charlie Kirk was senselessly murdered by the religious zealot left.
Freedom of speech and freedom to express Christian views in the public square - offends leftists to their core..
Most non-Christian conservatives are not offended by Christians who happen to be conservative. Your compatibility argument is flawed in the face of these truths.
The structure of leftwing thinking is to excommunicate God, or a life-giving force – or a common structure that builds community and honesty… Freedom of expression. freedom of speech… freedom to gather and discuss ideas. The center of the modern leftist is their victim status and their hatred and bigoty.
Leftists are offended by Judeo Christian beliefs and foundations, and they demand any outward expression of those beliefs be silenced and shunned.
No one is forcing anyone to go to church.
No one is saying - you must be a Christian to be a conservative. Kirk's message was one of hope and he hoped that his outward expression of his faith would lead others to want that for themselves.
I've always thought that "Christian Nationalism" are just two words that lefties have mashed together because they think it sounds ultra bad.
Oh, look. Brooks and the other mediaswine at NYT are working to nip in the bud the turning point inspired by Charlie’s murder. Bullshit and straw men abound. Christian Nationalism? Well, let’s see. Like Charlie I am a Christian and a nationalist, but I don’t support theocracy nor in decades as a Christian have I met anyone who openly does so. “Christian Nationalist” is used by leftist Democrats to vilify two groups they hate.
Freder - Your party is a mentally unstable lie-filled hate-built terrorist organization.
Another test. Is Frey being normative?
Now in the case of my dog, can anything like a ranking of rational desires be achieved? ... When I put food before him, my dog eats it ; when I throw the stick, he fetches it. Both he does unfailingly, unless he is distracted by some stronger impulse, such as, on occasion, sex ; and in response to the question whether my dog desires or prefers eating to chasing sticks, I can only say he does both when the situations are to hand and no other impulse interferes. Several times, I have tried putting food before him and throwing a stick at the same time ; each time he has sought neither the food nor the stuck but stood looking at me.
R.G.Frey, _Interests and Rights : The Case Against Animals_, cited by Vicki Hearne.
The left defines CN as going to church and liking the United States….and then…gasp…having a different political opinion than they do.
They can’t really define it past that.
So that is why the left killed Charlie Kirk
Paddy O said...
"...Actual Christian nationalists are much much less common to the point of being negligible but as said by Bart Hall serve as a rage inducing bogeyman for pokiticians and those who get need some outrage to feel alive."
Now that's a fortuitous misspelling. I'm keeping it!
rhhardin said...
Another test. Is Frey being normative?
Now in the case of my dog, can anything like a ranking of rational desires be achieved? ... When I put food before him, my dog eats it ; when I throw the stick, he fetches it. Both he does unfailingly, unless he is distracted by some stronger impulse, such as, on occasion, sex ; and in response to the question whether my dog desires or prefers eating to chasing sticks, I can only say he does both when the situations are to hand and no other impulse interferes. Several times, I have tried putting food before him and throwing a stick at the same time ; each time he has sought neither the food nor the stuck but stood looking at me.
R.G.Frey, _Interests and Rights : The Case Against Animals_, cited by Vicki Hearne.
It is hilarious that you think you are testing others and you can't understand that your moral framework is that of the dog.
You are unable to make that logical step from your feelings to an objective abstract framework.
Your morals are a soap opera. You have been living in a bubble. Humanism is the flat earther of moral systems.
Frey would be an example of an inability to read a dog. Smart guy but stupid.
The lying corrupt hate-filled left built a mass-hypnosis permission structure to kill.
Or - because the killer is not cooperating - something larger. A potential leftist grooming structure/REDDIT platform- created this 20 something killer.
Enter - NYT Democratic lectures. Because that is all the left have. NON STOP LECTURES.
David Brooks voted for Hillary, Biden, and Harris. And is a Jew with a son in the Israel military and wife who keeps a "Kosher" house. So of course, any time Christians get together and its not to celebrate Gays or fight racism, he get nervous.
His "conservatism" like that of Ross Doughnut and Reverend French is designed to steer the Right into being good losers. Don't fight the Left, except in a moderate, reasonable, harmless manner. And look out for all those "extremists", and shun them.
Its hilarious the way the Liberal establishment and their neocon, moderate buddies react. If muslim terrorists kill thousands of americans on 911, their major concern is "Hope there's not a backlash against Muslims".
And when a Leftist murders a moderately conservative Pundit, there main concern isnt "Wow, the violent Left is outta control" no its "Boy, hope those Rightwingers don't fight back too hard. That would be terrible".
You are unable to make that logical step from your feelings to an objective abstract framework.
Wm. Koehler trains dogs as moral beings. "I am not the sort of dog that breaks a sit-stay to chase a squirrel." Based on the dog's perception of who he is. Which is what makes morality moral. Something that singles you out as unique, where before you were interchangeable. Like being called on.
Why working breeds love working.
I trained my first Doberman through UDT (utility dog tracking). She had a vocabulary of 120 words and phrases in context.
Vicki Hearne "Adam's Task" would be a nice read for you. Ignore all cover blurb. Hearne takes no prisoners.
Uh oh. Disqus is requiring users be 18 or older. Protecting the Internet from children.
"The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture."
The exact same thing can be said of people on the far left. Making a specific choice not to believe in a religion is also an act of faith.
Would it be too much to ask Brooks to define Christian Nationalism?
But the events of the past week have proved that this is a genuinely religious movement and Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man.
Shorter Brooks: Those lying liars weren't really lying...
"@Achilles The only religion in the world that is capable of producing a society like ours is Protestant Christianity."
I would say rather that:
The religion that produced our society at its founding was Protestant Christianity but what it produced was universal in scope. For some unknown reason thousand upon thousands of 16th century Protestants heard the call to salvation so overwhelmingly that they felt called to found churches on their own wherever institutional churches obstructed their response to the call. And anyone who thinks they can found a church will think they can found a government. This is the historical basis of the United States. But in New England they didn't found just one kind of church and so the question the question came up there at once - can those who are not members of our type of church be members of our government. Initially ,Massachusetts said "No" and it expelled Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson while Thomas Hooker founded Connecticut in opposition to the Massachusetts way. But in the end the theory that conscience must be free prevailed and church and state were separated when the US Constitution was written. It's quite important to understand that this Constitutional outcome repesented a debate that began in 1610 and was ongoing till 1789. And even then the question existed whether Catholics had a conscience and so could be citizens or whether we were Papal automatons. We were excluded from the vote in some states right up to the Civil War on the ground that we had no real conscience of our own and so we couldn't be real citizens. Although George Washington accepted us from the start as having a conscience.
The real issue in "separation of church and state" is 1. having a conscience and 2. accepting that others from very different cultures can have a conscience.
And in the present day disputes it is evident that many on the left are committed to the view that only they have a true conscience just as was once thought in Massachusetts in 1630 AND SO only they are real citizens. Moreover, some go on to say that they can exclude those whose consciences haven't led them to the truth from different social institutions or they can even righteously kill them. And then it is said that many Moslems (but how many?) in this country pretending to be real US citizens think that Christians and Jews and atheists have no rights. Just as in Massachusetts in 1630.
And what about exceptions and abuses? The mentally ill? Children? Drug addicts? Immigrants indifferent to the law? Judges indifferent to the law?
We've had this debate before and the US won't fail if we have it again.
rhhardin said...
You are unable to make that logical step from your feelings to an objective abstract framework.
Wm. Koehler trains dogs as moral beings. "I am not the sort of dog that breaks a sit-stay to chase a squirrel." Based on the dog's perception of who he is. Which is what makes morality moral. Something that singles you out as unique, where before you were interchangeable. Like being called on.
Why working breeds love working.
I trained my first Doberman through UDT (utility dog tracking). She had a vocabulary of 120 words and phrases in context.
This is why humans are smarter than dogs. We can think abstractly. We can create an abstract framework that is not dependent on human feelings.
Dogs do not have the ability to think past their feelings. They get dopamine and oxytocin releases because humans have figured out how to train them to do things which are reinforced by these pathways.
Humans start out a "If I cry my needs are addressed." At about 2 years old they learn "I don't want to get spanked or yelled at." Around 3-7 depending on factors they learn "if I am nice to you you be nice to me."
You will never get past level 3 without an objective moral framework. The next step in moral development is "what do I do when people are mean to me."
This is where the secularists flounder and start treating humans like dogs and creating moral frameworks based on training dogs.
It's interesting that several of us thought of Norm MacDonald's joke when reading David Brooks' comment. I miss Norm.
There is a hackneyed phrase supposedly said first by several different people. Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think Liberals are dumb (or misinformed).
Brooksie, who could fall in love with a pants crease, never really understood or accepted that point.
Ann has again captured my exact sentiments.
"Christian nationalism," or something people today would give that label to, was a big part of American identity for much of our history. It's not coming back. The country is too different from what it was in the 1950s or 1910s or 1870s. But how bad was it, really? Of course, if you don't like it, you can blame it for racism, expansionism, and imperialism, but even the progressives of their day favored such trends.
"Christian Nationalism". Does anyone use this term other than those on the left? And what is it that they object to, the concept of a nation or the notion that our laws are founded on basic precepts of Judeo-Christian principles? It's hard to see what they would have instead. You want a non-nation? I think Somalia, Haiti and a few other places qualify. You want a nation based on more recent religious principles? Various Islamic states.....no thanks. I suppose their ideal is the loose confederation of the EU, where a very thin gloss of Christianity is all that remains of nearly 2,000 years, and where you can stroll across any frontier that suits you....with a batch of new citizens in tow, if that's your business model...
wildswan said...
I would say rather that:
The religion that produced our society at its founding was Protestant Christianity but what it produced was universal in scope.
This is more like it. Your post is an excellent post. This allows us to get into the "random" events that led to the United States and led to the first free high trust society in history.
I apologize for being hard on the Catholic Church. Don't take it personally. This will take several posts to work through.
For some unknown reason thousand upon thousands of 16th century Protestants heard the call to salvation so overwhelmingly that they felt called to found churches on their own wherever institutional churches obstructed their response to the call. And anyone who thinks they can found a church will think they can found a government. This is the historical basis of the United States.
Luther posted his 95 thesis and he explicitly stated that the relationship between man and god was an individual relationship. This made each person responsible for their own salvation. You couldn't buy it from the Catholics. You couldn't go to church to find it. You as a person had to do it yourself.
This was the way Christianity was meant to be in my opinion. I believe the Catholic Church rose to power and created a lot of Church Dogma so that they could centralize power in the religion.
When you make the list of things that had to happen in or out of order for the United States to become the first free high trust society in history Jesus was step #1 and Luther freeing the teachings of Jesus from centralized Catholic control was #1a. If the Catholic Church never existed we probably could have saved a 1000 years or so.
Brooks: "I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible."
Gosh, some of us fear powerful emotions that lead someone to shoot a man dead for engaging in debate with students on college campuses.
But in New England they didn't found just one kind of church and so the question the question came up there at once - can those who are not members of our type of church be members of our government. Initially ,Massachusetts said "No" and it expelled Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson while Thomas Hooker founded Connecticut in opposition to the Massachusetts way. But in the end the theory that conscience must be free prevailed and church and state were separated when the US Constitution was written. It's quite important to understand that this Constitutional outcome represented a debate that began in 1610 and was ongoing till 1789. And even then the question existed whether Catholics had a conscience and so could be citizens or whether we were Papal automatons. We were excluded from the vote in some states right up to the Civil War on the ground that we had no real conscience of our own and so we couldn't be real citizens. Although George Washington accepted us from the start as having a conscience.
Skipping over the arguments for/against suffrage.
What is a conscience? This is tied to the objective framework that someone builds a set of morals around.
At this point you are in the position where you are making a contract with your neighbors. We all agree to a set of rules. They are written down. They are objective. They do not change day to day based on whim or power.
The strength of a moral framework is only as strong as the weakest person that can change it. I.e. the weakest link in the chain.
The problem with the Catholic Church is that they subject their moral framework to the whims of the current ruler of the church. They have a centralized authority that can change the rules based on how he feels that day. This created a system where the weakest person could cause problems and the centralized nature of consensus generation allows the moral framework to be brittle.
Thus the problem of letting Catholics determine the future direction of a society. All countries that have Catholic majorities are low trust and corrupt. This is because individual catholics have divorced themselves from participating in formation of moral frameworks. They allow the church to mete out shame and judgement as a sole arbiter. This leads to much more mutable moral standards and less stability inviting corruption.
The result of a Catholic foundation for a social contract is Spain or Mexico or Italy.
Skipping a lot of stuff.
And what about exceptions and abuses? The mentally ill? Children? Drug addicts? Immigrants indifferent to the law? Judges indifferent to the law?
We've had this debate before and the US won't fail if we have it again.
Addressing suffrage specifically because that is important. Your social contract is determined by who you allow to participate in directing its future.
I 1000% agree that hedonists and criminals should not determine the direction of a country.
Personally I would posit that the only people who should vote are the people who have the ability to see and care about the consequences of their actions past their own lifespan. Since I don't trust words you would have to demonstrate this with actions.
Married couples with 2+ children. People who volunteer for civic duties such as military service. People who run businesses that create X number of jobs. There could be more paths to gaining suffrage. Possibly civil service positions for barren women to support child rearing activities.
I am not opposed to Catholics voting. I would however include a very detailed and painful discussion about why centralizing moral authority in one individual is a poor idea and an acknowledgement of the history of Catholic dogma and historical results.
Leftists are assassinating conservative speakers, shooting up TV stations, shooting ICE officials and lord knows what's next, but Freder's the true victim here.
Poor, poor Freder.
"I'm keeping it!"
I'm going to write a book on pokiticians now! Sometimes a typo can lead to a whole new industry of discussion
This is why humans are smarter than dogs. We can think abstractly. We can create an abstract framework that is not dependent on human feelings
A thousand counterexamples. The way you train a (trained, and so attentive) dog not to wrap the leash around a tree is to power forward and grind his head back around the tree. Thereafter he won't let a tree come between you and him on leash, no matter how hard you try to trap him. The amount of physics the dog has to figure out in short order is immense.
The religion that produced our society at its founding was Protestant Christianity but what it produced was universal in scope. For some unknown reason thousand upon thousands of 16th century Protestants heard the call to salvation so overwhelmingly that they felt called to found churches on their own wherever institutional churches obstructed their response to the call. And anyone who thinks they can found a church will think they can found a government. This is the historical basis of the United States. But in New England they didn't found just one kind of church and so the question the question came up there at once - can those who are not members of our type of church be members of our government. Initially ,Massachusetts said "No" and it expelled Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson while Thomas Hooker founded Connecticut in opposition to the Massachusetts way. But in the end the theory that conscience must be free prevailed and church and state were separated when the US Constitution was written. It's quite important to understand that this Constitutional outcome repesented a debate that began in 1610 and was ongoing till 1789. And even then the question existed whether Catholics had a conscience and so could be citizens or whether we were Papal automatons. We were excluded from the vote in some states right up to the Civil War on the ground that we had no real conscience of our own and so we couldn't be real citizens. Although George Washington accepted us from the start as having a conscience.
Interesting. Emerson said it Best:
eople are born with the moral or with the material bias;--uterine
brothers with this diverging destination: and I suppose, with high
magnifiers, Mr. Frauenhofer or Dr. Carpenter might come to distinguish
in the embryo at the fourth day, this is a Whig, and that a Free-soiler.
It was a poetic attempt to lift this mountain of Fate, to reconcile this
despotism of race with liberty, which led the Hindoos to say, "Fate is
nothing but the deeds committed in a prior state of existence." I find
the coincidence of the extremes of eastern and western speculation in
the daring statement of Schelling, "there is in every man a certain
feeling, that he has been what he is from all eternity, and by no means
became such in time." To say it less sublimely,--in the history of the
individual is always an account of his condition, and he knows himself
to be a party to his present estate.
A good deal of our politics is physiological. Now and then, a man of
wealth in the heyday of youth adopts the tenet of broadest freedom. In
England, there is always some man of wealth and large connection
planting himself, during all his years of health, on the side of
progress, who, as soon as he begins to die, checks his forward play,
calls in his troops, and becomes conservative. All conservatives are
such from personal defects.
Literally the Norm Macdonald meme. Brooks has zero self-awareness.
FWIW, "Judeo-Christian" is effectively a marketing slogan that was brought into political culture in the mid-20th century.
The roots of "Christianity" itself in the U.S. are also all over the map in terms of the various regions and historical origins. e.g. Catholicism would have been excluded as a legitimate form of "Christianity" at one point prior to the mid-20th century too. Calvinism would have excluded various Baptist strains as inauthentic and fraudulent. Of course, in the Constitutional framer's generation, there were many who were more than happy to leave the Christian God out of the picture altogether as a relic of an epoch that was grounded in superstition and barbarism.
As the Trump years have really laid bare, what really motivates many self-proposed "Christians" -- especially of the conservative variety -- is just a pure worship of Mammon. What is the United States under Trump? I don't tend to associate worship of earthly kings and money as being a deeply Christian value. The wanton abuse of the poor and vulnerable and immigrants is also hard to square with true Christian faith. American Christianity under Trump is an oxymoron. It is neither Christian nor American, at least not as those ideas are embodied in the highest sense.
Kaa - are you a leftist bot?
Achilles: "All countries that have Catholic majorities are low trust and corrupt."
(speaking as a half-Italian/10% Lowland Scot, former RC and current Piscopalian:) Yes, but which way does the causal arrow point? Perhaps Southern European culture is low-trust and corrupt, which led those countries to stay Catholic, while northern European culture is high-trust and truth-oriented, which led those countries to adopt Protestantism. And the Krauts are both because the decentralized nature of Germanic culture is best preserved if the Germans aren't all the same religion.
more Achilles: "individual catholics have divorced themselves from participating in formation of moral frameworks."
Much more accurate to cut everything from 'themselves' onward. Individual Catholics have divorced. Especially in the US, where ironically the RC schools themselves drilled Americanism into their younguns, modern Catholics decide everything for themselves. The few that bother to go to church at all are taking Communion without Confession, and the priests obviously know, if only from the arithmetic of how many show up for each. And then there are the same-sex couples that show up for Mass after Mass. American Catholics are American and Catholic in that order.
I think it would be great if the Vatican Hill became the Vatican Sinkhole. But I won't exaggerate the evils of Popery, either. Evil enough without my help! RLTW, JSM
He's afraid Republicans might pounce.
The week after Kirk's death made me think that an echo chamber might be good. I would be free to ascribe better arguments and attitudes to the people I disagree with.
The Right is definitely not the side that has the biggest problem right now with completely dehumanizing political opponents. It would be unthinkable that the Republicans in my feed would say the same things some Democrats were saying if a Democrat were murdered.
I blocked all social media from my phone because I realized that it was causing me to despise people.
"All countries that have Catholic majorities are low trust and corrupt."
It doesn't matter. Aside from small, isolated communities, the trend remains pretty squarely toward becoming low-trust across the board. I think we'll survive it, but you'd better lock your doors.
It does me good to come on here and see why my brother Gahrie would spend so much of his time here. Coming up on two years since his passing. I think if we look at what Brooks is saying it is indeed projection. Those of us right of center have always be called racists and phobes... That we are hateful and cruel - yet, for the most part, we do not return the vitrol. We disagree with an idea and wish to change the mind of the person(s) with the wrong idea. Brooks fears that we will become like them. He knows that more on the right have the ability to do great harm... but he misses the point that we, for the most part, do not hate others. Stay well everyone.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.