CIA's top lawyer made 'criminal referral' on whistleblower's complaint about Trump conduct https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAIiHa3?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare Another Trump appointee that is an obvious Dem partisan hack.
No. What I infer isn't the point. What is the point is that the society desired by fundamentalists wouldn't be spectacularly different from Sharia law if they were given their way. If I'm wrong explain to me how your "great world" would look different from, say, Saudi.
If she does, I hope she gets tested before and after. Who knows where that itty-bitty carrot has been?
Eh, lets be careful using that word. In theological circles, it is pretty much meaningless today. In many ways, I could be considered a fundamentalist, but I'm certainly not in favor of any sort of theonomy. In other sense, the Roman Catholic priest I sat next to at lunch today could be considered a fundamentalist. On the larger note, it does grieve me that so many Baptists have fallen into lock-step with the moral majority/modern evangelical movement. One of the distinctives of historical orthodox Baptist doctrine has been the separation of Church and State because we were the ones getting persecuted. Most of our great theologians served time in and formulated foundational thoughts in English prisons before the Tolerance Act of 1689. One of my heroes of the faith, John Bunyan, went to prison for "Preaching without a license", a license that, at the time, could only be granted by the Anglican Church.
It is like I have always said. It was never about freedom for the religious when establishing america. It was about being able to force your beliefs on others which is why people wanted to get away from catholic power.
Makes sense. After all, it's easy to forget now, but it used to be you had to pretty darn smart to get a job in the White House.
Her master's thesis was on the influence of pre-trial publicity on jury trials. I've never been able to find a copy of it, but I'm sure it would be interesting reading for journalists.
How do you exlain Stephen miller should lose his security clearance for certain someone quite friendly relationship with those far right guys at Charlottesville
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many of your beliefs fall in line with what George C. Scott describes here? That seems pretty hardline to me, and many people consider "hardline" to be a synonym for "fundamentalist." Do tell. Because a "fundamentalist Catholic" as I understand the term, is someone who would consider the current Pope to be illegitimate. Mel Gibson being a prime example of the type. I want to point out that those folks who scream that the US was "founded as a Christian nation" always neglect this fact. Many of the people who pushed for the First Amendment to be passed were devout Christians who hated the idea of there being a state-controlled church. They were quite often Baptists (or other non-Church of England denominations) and they didn't like the idea of their tax dollars being used to support a church who's belief system they disagreed with. I can remember when I was a kid, hearing missionaries my church sent out, recounting the great successes they were having in converting people in Mexico (Mexico City, to be precise). Only when I grew older did I find this as being a bit odd. The people they were most likely to be preaching to were already Christian, just not Lutheran. If what mattered to getting them into Heaven was hearing about Jesus, then they were already taken care of. If they had to be part of a specific denomination to get to Heaven, then why weren't we trying to convert everyone in town to Lutheranism?
the collective sin of the entire American Christian Nationalist cult. Ultimately political power is far more appealing than ethics and honorable conduct. The latter very easily sacrificed in pursuit of the former. A disgrace to the name they claim in every respect. What kind of religion is willing to sacrifice all of that which makes it valuable in order to enforce a set of rules that don't, and oppress the folks you look down on. No Jesus in it.
your whole little bit about the Southern border is pure unadulterated anti-christ in it's nature and effect, putting aside the dogwhistle "I want my country back" bigotry. Neither you nor the pastor have ANY claim to the moral high ground either in your intentions and desires, or in the outcomes of your evil choices. Resent THAT Bitch.
If you sincerely believe the road you're going down here then be definition you cannot advocate for all the Christian Nationalist stuff you're invested in on the basis of "God said" and you're really just wanting the government to legislate your own personal bigotries.
On Tuesday SCOTUS, with their Christian nationalist majority, will consider 2 (3?) cases which Dominionists hope will lead to a decision which will overturn the precedent of scores of lower court decisions re Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (and by implication other non-discrimination laws). If they get their wise, ALL persons (not just LGB and especially T people) will be subject to termination based on their employers religiously based expectations for proper appearance and conduct of their gender role as consistent with the state of their genitals at birth. Put simply - not only could I be fired for wearing a skirt, but a non-trans woman could be fired for NOT wearing one, or sufficient makeup or a properly feminine hairstyle or whatever. He can quibble over the word "Sharia" if he wants but it's still all very Taliban-y
https://www.searchforbeauty.org/what-is-shari-ah/ Note that the debate here isn't whether or not it's the common usage, but whether or not it can actually exist, which Dayton asserts in the negative.
Zombie (and Kevin McCarthy): "Too Late!! Too Late!!! All crimes are cool because the process!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But are we having this conversation in theological circles? I'm using the word as it is seen in general usage rather than within those circles. Other than that, I agree totally with this post.