Charlie Kirk, Christian Nationalism, & Comparative Religions

I wanted a place to unpack the 3 issues in my title. The Left has by and large vilified the late Charlie Kirk and I wanted to address that. Christian Nationalism is a no-brainer except regarding the freedom to preach.
To wit: Message 1392

Percy:

---

Any position on Kirk is valid for discussion in this forum, but individual threads have their own topics. This one is a tribute thread for greats. There are other threads where the role Kirk played in conservative politics can be characterized, labeled, and discussed. For example, Kirk is being discussed in the The Second Trump Presidency thread right now, and I just opened the Condemnation Thread for Recently Passed Reprobates thread

---

An appropriate amount of time has passed since the political assassination. (Or was he shot for advocating ONE religion? Hence Christian Nationalism in the thread title.Finally, Comparative Religion. Why can't a guy freely defend his concept of Christianity?The new NYC Mayor has publicly stated that Allah is against Judaism in its current nationalist form. There is definitely an argument against this sort of progressive hype.I'll be back after my workshift...and I will get the quote directly from Mondani.

Quickly: And for good reason, it seems to me.MAGAtry is by its nature racist, sexist, and anti-Constitution (hence, unAmerican), which many of us rightfully view as being evil. Charlie Kirk was a spokesman and agent for the spread of MAGAtry, especially among the youth.Being an agent for the spread of evil should be reprehensible and should rightfully lead to the vilification of said agent.QED There's no such thing as "ONE religion" except in the fevered minds of members of the plethora of "ONE religions", each of whom believe naïvely that THEIR OWN PARTICULAR version of "the ONE religion" is the actual "ONE religion."288,000 different gods. 45,000 different forms of Christianity (narrowed down to 200 different forms of Christianity in the USA). And even within each individual congregation each individual cleaves to his own particular individual misunderstanding of "God", raising the number of different Christianities to the millions or even billions (American billion; ie, 10⁹).And each and every one of those deluded individuals would (or should) "advocate their ONE religion." So nothing stands out there, especially not as something to make one a target (though military wisdom does advise against being conspicuous since that tends to draw fire).Rather, indications are that Kirk's assassin was part of the Groyper community led/founded/inspired by right-wing extremist (to put it very mildly) Nick Fuentes:

quote:

---

Groypers have attempted to introduce their politics into mainstream conservatism in the United States by various means and participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack as well as the protests leading up to it. They have targeted other conservative groups and individuals whose agendas they view as contrary to the concept of "America First". The Groyper movement has been described as homophobic, racist, nativist, fascist, sexist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and an attempt to rebrand the alt-right movement. It has also been called accelerationist.

​

What was later dubbed "The Groyper War" began in the fall of 2019, when Fuentes launched a social media campaign targeting Turning Point USA's "Culture War" college tour, led by Charlie Kirk. Enraged by the firing of a Fuentes ally as well as other political conflicts, Groypers disrupted college events by asking provocative questions on immigration, Israel, and LGBT rights, in an attempt to challenge mainstream conservative figures like Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., and Ben Shapiro, whom they labeled "Conservative Inc." The war gained traction after a November 2019 UCLA event where Trump Jr. was cut short by Groyper heckling, exposing divisions among conservatives. Fuentes expanded the movement with the Groyper Leadership Summit in December 2019 and the formation of America First Students in January 2020.

---

That reference in the quote to "accelerationist" caused a free association in my mind to "accelerant", a substance used in arson to rapidly spread the fire (eg, gasoline), which similarly would refer to the inflammatory nature of that political group.Similarly, I had an enlightening conversation with a "Fundamentalist" who very strongly objected to being called that ("Please don't group me with THEM!"). It turns out that while outsiders (AKA "normals", but maybe that's just me) will view the collection of such groups as being the same, amongst themselves they strongly distinguish and delineate themselves from "those others".So while we normals (including you out of charity) tend to view MAGAts and MAGAt-adjacent groups as being the same kind of critters, they can view each other as being very different and even diametrically opposed to each other.In this case, there was very strong enmity between the Kirk and Fuentes factions such that Kirk's killing was due to MAGAt-on-MAGAt violence. Of course, as per Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The only restriction is that it can't be the government doing the preaching.You want to organize a public meeting to promote your particular religion? Fine! Go for it! Everyone in attendance has chosen to be there.You want to turn a mandatory evolution into your own private revival meeting? Fuck you, that is an inexcusable abuse of your power! May you immediately be relieved of duty for it!A local creationist hit me with this "gotcha" question: "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" I provided him with a very thoughtful answer, one that he was completely incapable of understanding (in part because none of his "unanswerable questions", virtually all of which I answered but he refused to discuss, were his own but rather he was recycling them without having given any of them any thought, much as David Hine is doing). While the bottom line of my response was that that decision, including which "God", was entirely up to the child's parents, I also examined the different kinds of "being taught about God" and the roles of those who might be doing that teaching. For the full treatment, read my page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?. BTW, Bill Morgan was never able to understand what I was explaining to him and his only response to my requesting that he explain why he thought I hadn't answered his question was to abruptly cancel his email account and then hiding his new address from public view for two years.Basically, if you are an agent of the government (eg, public school teacher, commanding or superior officer in the military), using your position to impose your religious preaching on your subordinates/students is a very clear case of abuse of power.My freedom to swing my fists around wildly ends at the point of your nose. My freedom to defend or promote my religion or any aspect of it or its teachings ends at the point where it infringes on your right to not be subjected to forced proselytizing.I mean, that should be self-evident (selbstverständlich, one of my long-time favorite not-quite-translatable German words). And yet so many people are unable to understand it. Yes, do please provide us with the context. And do please try for as much of the context as you can provide.From what you have provided, I don't see that as Islamic condemnation of Judaism in general, but rather specifically of Zionism, the Judaic movement to reestablish Israel.IOW, I think you were reading into his words more than was actually there.

quote:

---

Finally, Comparative Religion. Why can't a guy freely defend his concept of Christianity?

---

The question is what do you mean by that.To take an extreme case, if a modern Adolf Hitler went around the country preaching his views would it be wrong to call him a Nazi? Would it be wrong to to protest against his presence on University Campuses? If not, where do you draw the line?

You always say this confidantly, but atheistic secular humanism is itself a belief system of sorts...otherwise, atheist men's breakfasts would have no unifying factor EXCEPT opposition to what they see as the harm and illogic of monotheism. You mistakenly attribute the SOURCE to be the human mind. I believe that GOD, if GOD exists is quite capable of establishing a communion of wisdom and understanding amongst humans. The whole idea of *288,000 different gods* is a cop out. It sugests that atheists have a commonality that Christians don't. You have simply accepted diversity in spirituality and unity in humanity. Or are you going to argue that a mens breakfast is not a form of communion? My argument is essentially that unity is brought about by GOD Himself despite our natural inclinations to create our own gods. Diversity, though it sounds like a kind and gentle concept, has issues philosophically. Do we study at Universities or at Diversities? One Nation Under God is a useful concept, though one could argue that these very concepts cause wars. I would argue that the Spiritual War on this planet is as old as the reptilian snake. Ye shall be a gods. And so some imagine we are.Now, playing devil's advocate, I can argue that Charlie Kirk had an agenda that he believed in. So do Marxists. So does Antifa. One question we need to settle is whether a speaker like Kirk fosters hate and division or merely is (was) allowed freedom of speech.One other question: Why was Kirk unconstitutional? He seemed to have quite a good grasp of the Constitution to me.

it can be two things

It's like you joined the forum last week.You've been here for over 20 years and are still utterly clueless about what an atheist is. It's been explained thousands of times to you but you're here now, saying the same nonsense.Atheists men's breakfast clubs? ffs do these things actually exist? I suppose it's possible that there are three in some weird society like the USA, but they mostly in your addled religiously damaged brain.Atheists are just people that don't go to church. They don't think about religion. it just doesn't exist. It's a nothing. I know you can't imagine such a thing - you're so wrapped up in you stupid beliefs that it's impossible for you to accept that a huge number of people not only don't share your dumb beliefs but don't have any substitute for them that you can call a belief.Here you are talking the same bollox about it like the last 20 years hasn't happened for you. Meanwhile atheists just go about their lives totally oblivious to your medieval nonsense.

Here in the USA, just south of Los Angeles, the first two Sundays of each month I attend such "breakfast clubs", which are discussion groups, one associated with Backyard Skeptics and the other with Atheists United. Just similar-minded people getting together to talk about all kinds of subjects. Nothing weird about any of it.And only a small percentage of the discussion even touches on religion and almost never on "God" itself, but rather on what religions claim about "God". Poor word choice there. You should have said, "They don't think about 'God'. it just doesn't exist. It's a nothing." Discussing religion does crop up, since religion does exist and has had and continues to have effect on society, mostly very negative, even destructive.For that matter, "God" doesn't really have anything to do with religion outside of serving as an excuse for their excesses.But, yes, atheists don't care about "God" (whichever hand-waving "definition" of The Undefinable -- check out Ignosticism, the position that "the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition"), nor are we that concerned about proving or disproving its existence. Rather, the defining characteristic of atheists is that, when religionists try to sell us their "pig in a poke" (AKA "bill of goods"), we simply refuse to buy their story. "God" has nothing to do with it. It must be a Sign! Just this morning, this video from an atheist call-in show (The Line, this on with Forrest Valkai and Seth Andrews hosting) appeared on YouTube:

quote:

---

Christian Questions EVERYTHING After Watching Church Support Trump | Forrest Valkai & Seth Andrews

​

Janet from Kansas calls atheist hosts despite still believing in God because she can't discuss her doubts with Christians. After 51 years of indoctrination, she's watching her church community glorify Trump while claiming to follow Christ, leaving her questioning everything she was taught. Forrest and Seth offer compassionate guidance, suggesting she approach doubt gradually like exposure therapy and recognize that religious beliefs are cultural preferences passed down through generations. Janet admits the atheist community shows more empathy and compassion than most Christians in her life, and she's planning to see Forrest speak at an upcoming event in Wichita.

---

She's a life-long believer (half a century) who still wants to believe, but everything she's seeing around her in her church has her beginning to doubt them (eg, that they are worshipping a man who is the antithesis of Christ). At the very least she has questions rising up which she cannot discuss with anybody She doesn't dare talk about any of it with anyone at church! So where can she go to talk about this?That is what your "Atheists men's breakfast clubs" are for! Though we admit everybody, not just men and not just atheists.And that has become a problem in general in this country. In any normal gathering (ie, neither political nor religious; eg, at work, in class, in public) we are actually censoring ourselves for fear of triggering a fanatic (eg, fundie, MAGAt, Christian Nationalist) and causing a disturbance. Or destroying a working friendship, acquaintanceship, familial relationship, etc, over a factual observation (eg, the flagrant lies and corruption of the Trump Regime).For example, before I retired (2018) I found that several of my co-workers were conspiracy theorists (and pro-Trump). In order to maintain a proper work environment, I had to remain guarded. My friend (politically active, hated Republicans and had no patience with religious fanatics) told me of how she had met a very good like-minded friend at work and how the two of them had spent weeks in an intricate dance of sizing each other up before either of them could dare to start to open up.And between 22:00 and 23:00 in that video where Seth promotes Forrest's upcoming presentation in Wichita, he describes how we're being bombarded with such horrible news that we are hungry for any rational voice to help us figure it out.

So Long, Mom, I'm Off To Drop The Bomb:

---

I awoke to news of Trump's open-water murder spree and this came to mind.

​

In 1964, Tom Lehrer offered a song for World War III, since if any songs are to come out of that war then we'd better start writing them now.

​

​

While we're attacking frontally,
Watch Brink-e-ly and Hunt-e-ly
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute of the agonizing Holocaust!
Yeaah!

​

---

It is among the atheists where we can find those safe spaces in which to open up and talk about what's happening -- "Janet admits the atheist community shows more empathy and compassion than most Christians in her life". And through your "Atheists men's breakfast clubs" we can also share a meal safely with rational people.

It *is* weird. At least to Europeans it's weird.But I sort of understand why you might not think that - you lot are still fighting majority fundamentalism. We're way past all that. Atheism here is baseline. Even the religious are the nice liberal kind with vague, nice, harmless beliefs. We have our own fundies of course but they're not taken seriously. Nobody talks about religion anymore. It's just not a thing.I was in New York in October and walked down 7th Avenue from Times Square to 34th Street. Every 3rd block there was a some idiot shouting about Jesus. (We were told to get a taxi back.) You guys have got some way to go.

As I've heard, in the UK a political candidate who starts talking about religion and puts his piety on display has just lost the election; his faith is supposed to be private and not for public display. In the USA, candidates are expected to put their piety on prominent public display, usually the more radical the faith the more "persuasive". And any atheist running for office is virtually guaranteed to lose.Our discussion last Atheists United brunch touched on a likely cause for this, which is that it's an undesirable side effect of our much touted "church/state separation". In his A Memorial and Remonstrance (1785), James Madison presented the concept of church/state separation even though it was Thomas Jefferson who gave it the name we know it by in 1802. Madison also enumerated the many problems that mixing government and religion would cause for both the government and the churches. For example:

A Memorial and Remonstrance:

---

7. Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

​

. . .

​

9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

​

10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

​

11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

​

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

---

Thus our Religious Liberty contained the seeds of our doom. In Europe where the churches were state supported the churches stopped trying to survive and the population lost interest. But in the USA, the churches had to work at remaining relevant and at growing their congregations. Like the two-edged sword of Capitalism, the resulting competition not only strengthened our churches, making them more vital, but it also resulted in their attempts to consolidate power and wealth. A side effect of that consolidation of power is the generation of religious fervor, which grew in this country as it waned in yours.Now that religious fervor is being turned to the consolidation of political power. As Capitalism has evolved into a monster bred to devour everything around it, so too has American religiosity evolved into a monster no less fierce and voracious.At least that's the direction our musings took two Sundays ago.As you express, in your country atheism is the norm, or at least apatheism (apathy towards religion and religious matters), and anyone interested in religion can easily look in the telephone directory for the nearest church that might interest him.In contrast, in my country religiosity is held up as the norm such that even the apatheists tend to declare nominal adherence to a religion just to keep from being pestered by the zealots. Atheists are in a position in which they are isolated individuals left to think that they're the only ones who have the same doubts or who think the way that they do. Prior to social media, it was virtually impossible for atheists to find and connect with other atheists, especially if attempts to publicize or organize were met with popular opposition from religionists.Case in point is the deconversion story of Dan Barker, co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and referred to as "America's Leading Atheist." Back in the mid-1980's when Atheists United (AU) had a weekly radio program (15 minutes per week for atheism "balanced" against endless hours of Christian broadcasting), they would broadcast the presentations of their monthly speakers, which is how I first heard of and heard Dan Barker's story. His parents had been "saved" before he was born, so he was raised in Christian Fundamentalism -- his childhood memories include listening to his mother singing in tongues as she went about her daily housekeeping (swear to God and three other white men (a Redd Foxx joke) ). At the age of 11, God personally called him to the ministry, that's how deeply ingrained his faith was. In that AU broadcast, he defined fundamentalism as "when your theology becomes your psychology", a definition that still resounds with me.He is also very intelligent, which can be a curse. Instead of being content to be "fat, dumb, and happy" (a US Air Force epithet for a certain type of military member), smart people tend to think ... a lot ... too much (a friend once asked me if I'm smart, because her brother was smart and he drove himself crazy, so she was worried about me). Dan Barker also thought a lot, which led to him asking questions for which he sought answers, which eventually led to him questioning too much.More specifically as he recounted in the autobiographical part of his book, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, he had a traveling musical ministry (he's also a musician and composer; his father was a musician who loved swing music but gave it up for Christ, only to regain it when he also deconverted) which put him in contact with many fundamentalist churches in many communities. Now, fundamentalism is starkly binary, everything is black-and-white, good-or-bad, with no "grey" in between, no nuances whatsoever. There is a very sharply delineated line between right and wrong. Except he noticed that while every single congregation had their Line of Demarcation, it wasn't always the same such that some congregations allowed for things that others forbad. If you were plot all of those lines of demarcation you would find they formed a band between "right and wrong", basically a broad region of GRAY, something that their theology cannot allow to exist, and yet ... there it is, undeniably.He thought, he read, he discussed, until finally his church kicked him out and convinced his wife to leave him. He was in the area he had grown up, Los Angeles, California. That was in the 1980's, over a decade before the Internet. As far as he knew, he was the only person in all of human existence who had the thoughts and doubts that he was having. He was completely and utterly alone.Then he was booked on a daytime talk show. In 1984, he appeared on Oprah Winfrey's Chicago show where he met his future second wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and moved to Madison, Wisconsin, where he finally found others who thought the same as he did. What he had not known was that all that time he was "the only atheist in Southern California", Atheists United had long established themselves in nearby Santa Monica, but because there was no known atheist community through which to learn about them, he had no idea that they even existed. At that point in his presentation to Atheists United, he cried out to them, "Where were you when I needed you?"THAT is why atheist organizations and "breakfast clubs" are needed. For those poor souls losing their faith and undergoing deconversion (which can be a very painful experience) who don't realize that they are not alone, that there are others out there who had gone through the exact same thing and who can offer help and support.

I posted this image once before of the atheists booth at Balboa Park in San Diego: --Percy

I talk about Jesus every day publicly and politely. Jesus has been alive before I was born and will outlast Europe's atheistic "progressiveness". Once this world truly needs Him, He will not disappoint. Your problem and the collective problem of most secular humanists is that you believe that humans made up the stories. Take dwise1. Dutifully seeking to find truth in the pages of the Bible, his rational mind simply couldnt accept the stories. His unbelief was reinforced by dealing with endless simple minded and lying creationists as well as communing with like minded skeptics and atheists. Even here at EvC, discussing atheism is like preaching to the choir.
The lady who wished to discuss her skepticism was likely trying to find commonality with the heart of her skeptical daughter. Forrest Valkai and his secular intelligence welcomed her with more understanding than her church did. Not because Jesus is dead (or a myth) but because the flame is only glowing dimly in atheist/humanist hearts.As for Charlie Kirk, his approach failed because of his conflation of politics and religion. He should have been more like Cliffe Knectle who steers away from politics.

What is your opinion of the significance of the picture?

Yeh, I bet you do, you're one of the nutters. Jesus, if he even existed at all, died 2,000 years ago. That's your problem Chuck, not mine, the stories are very obviously made up, you're wasting your life muttering to yourself and the rest of us think you're mad.

I consider your stories to have the same level of authenticity that you consider the stories of other religions to have.

Europe isn't just progressive with atheism though, I would daresay our religions in general have more going for them as well. It's less culty and more a supportive community.But unlike the alienation you find in the US where someone who thinks differently is basically the enemy, or in the nicest case, a poor lost soul that hasn't been converted yet. Over here in the Netherlands at least, understanding and acceptance is way more key.One of my best friends is a preacher for a protestant church in a small town, he regularly brings in people from other religions or even atheists for discussion groups, it's understanding each other and why people feel or think a certain way, that helps people connect.My question now is, why do you talk about Jesus every day?