(Part 1 of 3 for PAID SUBSCRIBERS) And how its interpretation allows Christo-fascist Republicans to demolish Constitutional guardrails (Scroll to the end to listen)
It's mind boggling how disruptive and insidious this Christian nationalist movement is.
The Founding Fathers were very clear that the Bible and Christianity (or any other religion) were not common law. The word God is not even in the Constitution, the word bible is not in the Constitution. The Christian nationalist twist, turns, manipulates everything to pigeonhole it into their narrow ideologies, then force it on everyone. They essentially lie about the founding fathers and the Constitution.
If the Constitution intended for this country to be ruled by biblical law, they never would have wrote the Constitution to begin with.
It’s one of the most insidious aspects of “originalism.” Christian Nationalists respond to everything with “because the Bible says so” or “because God says.” They took these same thought-terminating statements and applied them to the Constitution. “It’s what the Founders meant.” We can’t dig them up and ask them. And that’s the point. You can’t argue with people who no longer exist.
Roughly 4,500 words in the US constitution, and none of them are: god, jesus, bible, christianity. It's crystal clear to everyone except them...... because they simply don't want to accept it.
For them, it will never cease to be a Christian Nationalist moral order, but I expect racial/social to be part of that. After they fight about whose religion will be the national religion.
Functioning political parties. Democracy requires viable options. Right now, the United States only has one functional political party - Democrats.
I do not understand this statement. I thought there are three parties. Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. I realize that the Libertarian party has never really been able to garner enough support to have a presidential candidate. I am assuming this is the reason. The more I read about your explanation of Project 2025 the more disturbed I become. Another thing I am asking myself is this. Does the Democratic party have its own plan or agenda that conservatives such as myself would be equally disturbed about?
The operative word is “functioning.” Republicans and Democrats have been dominant for decades, really our only viable options at the national level.
People can be independent. They can be Green Party or libertarian. But those groups don’t have the fundraising muscle behind them. The two main parties have long fought to be the only two.
And now one - the Republicans - became completely under 45s control today with his hiring of his handpicked leadership (including his daughter-in-law) and the firing of 50 or 60 RNC staffers. The Republican Party is now the party of a self-professed wanna be dictator. Abe Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt (my fave President) and even Ronald Reagan are churning in their graves.
Democrats are too big a tent to make such a plan, James. They’d argue about it for a decade before they’d put anything down, and everybody would do whatever they wanted to implement. I’m sure Democrats have goals you object to, but at least you will have the freedom to object.
The long-term outcome could be a fracturing of both main parties, giving us several more competitive options. I think more Americans would be excited to vote under that scenario, because these parties could more closely align with one’s values. But democracy must survive the coming election first. Democrats are our only route to keeping our democracy.
I would second Andra about all of this. It's very hard for Democrats to achieve conformity, even if they wanted to, (which many don't). They are a coalition of liberals, moderates, and progressives, and even still some conservatives, among Black and Hispanic voters. It's really only the progressives you would be concerned about. Yes, they want to use the power of the state to create what they believe to be a fair society. But they've never been able to establish control of the Democratic party, particularly at the national level.
Liberals are different. It's not quite the same as libertarian, but I would define a liberal as someone who wants everyone to have the opportunity to make the most of their life and pursue their dreams, and wants to achieve this with as little coercion as possible. For me it's helpful to think of 'liberal' not in the way it is commonly used in America (though not Europe), to mean 'left', but rather as the opposite of 'illiberal'.
I think to the extent that some Democrats have become more militant or combative in recent years, it's coming from a deep fear of what's happening in the Republican party, a feeling that the other side has whole groups of people they don't want to exist, or that they want to have less freedom.
Someday the left may become as much of a threat as the right, but that day is not today or at any time in the near future. In local areas where they are going too far, such as San Francisco, you are already seeing voter backlash, and that's how a healthy democracy is supposed to work.
Fascinating that your post is about "ordered liberty." Order is a concept that I am currently struggling with in my latest Knorr eugenics translation. The word for orderly in German is "ordentlich." It has always contained a somewhat moralistic flavor, but under the Nazis it smacked of racial fitness. A family and blood kin were either "ordentlich" or asocial (of no racial value to the Volk). According to the totally bogus "biological partner rule," an ordentlich young man married an ordentlich young woman, and they had ordentlich children. The asocial man married a slatternly woman (Schlampe) and passed on those genes to their progeny.
It seems likely that the idea of "ordered liberty" will at some point be made to coalesce more explicitly with ideas about racial and social fitness.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Christian Nationalists apply a racial lens to "ordered liberty" at some point. Many of them are so obsessed with "Great Replacement Theory" and similar. And many of them are racist white supremacists because they've been taught their Bibles teach Black and Brown inferiority.
It's mind boggling how disruptive and insidious this Christian nationalist movement is.
The Founding Fathers were very clear that the Bible and Christianity (or any other religion) were not common law. The word God is not even in the Constitution, the word bible is not in the Constitution. The Christian nationalist twist, turns, manipulates everything to pigeonhole it into their narrow ideologies, then force it on everyone. They essentially lie about the founding fathers and the Constitution.
If the Constitution intended for this country to be ruled by biblical law, they never would have wrote the Constitution to begin with.
It’s one of the most insidious aspects of “originalism.” Christian Nationalists respond to everything with “because the Bible says so” or “because God says.” They took these same thought-terminating statements and applied them to the Constitution. “It’s what the Founders meant.” We can’t dig them up and ask them. And that’s the point. You can’t argue with people who no longer exist.
Roughly 4,500 words in the US constitution, and none of them are: god, jesus, bible, christianity. It's crystal clear to everyone except them...... because they simply don't want to accept it.
They have their own agenda which is “force everyone to live by our religious rules.”
Yes. And liberty in the sense they mean it will be the imposition of racial/social order.
For them, it will never cease to be a Christian Nationalist moral order, but I expect racial/social to be part of that. After they fight about whose religion will be the national religion.
Functioning political parties. Democracy requires viable options. Right now, the United States only has one functional political party - Democrats.
I do not understand this statement. I thought there are three parties. Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. I realize that the Libertarian party has never really been able to garner enough support to have a presidential candidate. I am assuming this is the reason. The more I read about your explanation of Project 2025 the more disturbed I become. Another thing I am asking myself is this. Does the Democratic party have its own plan or agenda that conservatives such as myself would be equally disturbed about?
The operative word is “functioning.” Republicans and Democrats have been dominant for decades, really our only viable options at the national level.
People can be independent. They can be Green Party or libertarian. But those groups don’t have the fundraising muscle behind them. The two main parties have long fought to be the only two.
And now one - the Republicans - became completely under 45s control today with his hiring of his handpicked leadership (including his daughter-in-law) and the firing of 50 or 60 RNC staffers. The Republican Party is now the party of a self-professed wanna be dictator. Abe Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt (my fave President) and even Ronald Reagan are churning in their graves.
Democrats are too big a tent to make such a plan, James. They’d argue about it for a decade before they’d put anything down, and everybody would do whatever they wanted to implement. I’m sure Democrats have goals you object to, but at least you will have the freedom to object.
The long-term outcome could be a fracturing of both main parties, giving us several more competitive options. I think more Americans would be excited to vote under that scenario, because these parties could more closely align with one’s values. But democracy must survive the coming election first. Democrats are our only route to keeping our democracy.
I would second Andra about all of this. It's very hard for Democrats to achieve conformity, even if they wanted to, (which many don't). They are a coalition of liberals, moderates, and progressives, and even still some conservatives, among Black and Hispanic voters. It's really only the progressives you would be concerned about. Yes, they want to use the power of the state to create what they believe to be a fair society. But they've never been able to establish control of the Democratic party, particularly at the national level.
Liberals are different. It's not quite the same as libertarian, but I would define a liberal as someone who wants everyone to have the opportunity to make the most of their life and pursue their dreams, and wants to achieve this with as little coercion as possible. For me it's helpful to think of 'liberal' not in the way it is commonly used in America (though not Europe), to mean 'left', but rather as the opposite of 'illiberal'.
I think to the extent that some Democrats have become more militant or combative in recent years, it's coming from a deep fear of what's happening in the Republican party, a feeling that the other side has whole groups of people they don't want to exist, or that they want to have less freedom.
Someday the left may become as much of a threat as the right, but that day is not today or at any time in the near future. In local areas where they are going too far, such as San Francisco, you are already seeing voter backlash, and that's how a healthy democracy is supposed to work.
Thank you Zach. I appreciate having an intelligent conversation about this stuff without getting overly emotional about it or name calling.
You're welcome. It's quite easy to be civil when the person you're conversing with is civil too. All Americans should try it.
Thank you Andra. I appreciate how you have taken the time to explain this to me.
Fascinating that your post is about "ordered liberty." Order is a concept that I am currently struggling with in my latest Knorr eugenics translation. The word for orderly in German is "ordentlich." It has always contained a somewhat moralistic flavor, but under the Nazis it smacked of racial fitness. A family and blood kin were either "ordentlich" or asocial (of no racial value to the Volk). According to the totally bogus "biological partner rule," an ordentlich young man married an ordentlich young woman, and they had ordentlich children. The asocial man married a slatternly woman (Schlampe) and passed on those genes to their progeny.
It seems likely that the idea of "ordered liberty" will at some point be made to coalesce more explicitly with ideas about racial and social fitness.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Christian Nationalists apply a racial lens to "ordered liberty" at some point. Many of them are so obsessed with "Great Replacement Theory" and similar. And many of them are racist white supremacists because they've been taught their Bibles teach Black and Brown inferiority.