Hey yall, I'm Joey!  I've cruised this site for nearly two years and finally decided to make an account (mostly to read the political posts). 

The reason I made this post is because I had four 1960s Freedom Riders come to speak to my social movements course a few months back.  Although they all spoke at different dates, they each firmly believed that we are on the precipice of another large social movement.  When I asked one if they imagined it would be just like the 1960s, they told me that although it won't be as large as the 1960s (because if the pressures of the times), we should expect great societal changes. 

I believe change has been brewing for a while now; posts have already been made about BLM and the #MeToo movements in recent times.  After this recent Parkland shooting, I feel as though the response is quite different! So much so that I sense we truly are about to see a progressive reform in the near future, or at least this is a glimpse of what the 2020s will offer.  I would not mind that at all.  If Gen Z has been able to make a name for themselves during this current post-shooting discussion, then I have no doubt that they will bring more activism to the forefront from here on out. 

This is why I have finally decided to post, because I wanted to know what people on this website think about this?  Do yall agree to a degree? Do you think it's still too early to tell? Let's discuss!  :D

Generation Z is widely perceived to be a very conservative generation. So I find Gen-Z's reaction to Parkland to be rather interesting, if not telling. Perhaps they want to make a name for themselves? And fix their reputation?
But I can only speak from anecdotes. I am on the cusp of "Y" and "Z" myself, born in 1998. The 1995-2000 borns are their own unique mini-generation, and I think we are VERY different from our successors (2001-2008 borns, of which my 2006-born sister is one).
Supposedly, most of the protesters were freshman and sophomores. So they would be born between 2002 and 2004. My 2006-born sister has some progressive views, but she is hardly even a spring chicken yet. 5 years is enough time for her views to evolve, devolve and develop in general. She could be a rabid leftist by 2023, or she could be a fu*king white separatist and I would still love her as she's my next of kin.
Late '90s babies tend to be very conservative in general, by "American youth" standards. These are my observations at least, and statistics haven't significantly helped nor have they hurt my conclusion that we tend to be more politically/culturally conservative than our predecessors AND our successors. Early-to-mid 2000s babies are only beginning to develop their political views, if at all. Most of my sister's peers haven't yet (mid-to-late 2000s babies). I have some hopes that their cultural views will be a mixture of progressive and libertarian, which is the right kind of mixture IMO.
We Americans don't need fringe far-right bigots and separatists to poison our waters.
I tend to identify as a "radical centrist" with a strong (lowercase l) libertarian streak. I have some very progressive views, and a couple of centre-right views. I'm not entirely keen on the knee-jerk "anti-gun" rhetoric and reactions of many on the Left. I support sensible gun reform, but I don't think it boils down to just that. It's more like a perfect storm of ingredients that created monsters like Cruz.
Anyways, back to the point: it is very much possible that CORE Gen-Zers have a strong progressive streak. Probably, but possibly not. It's too early to tell. But I just don't see that so-called "progressive streak" in us cuspers (1995-2000 babies). We're libertarian at best, reactionaries at worst. I'm a bit of the former, but almost none of the latter.

Yeah I think this as well. There is no doubt society will only get more and more progressive, and the '20s will likely bring even more progressive change.

Yeah I think this as well. There is no doubt society will only get more and more progressive, and the '20s will likely bring even more progressive change.


I kinda hope so, but sometimes the far left (unintentionally) alienates me. I certainly don't want us to head in a far-right, fascistic direction but I'm only one voter and I sincerely doubt that would be the case.

I kinda hope so, but sometimes the far left (unintentionally) alienates me. I certainly don't want us to head in a far-right, fascistic direction but I'm only one voter and I sincerely doubt that would be the case.


I know what you mean. We should not have to choose between two sides of the extreme for our future. I really do not want the far-left/SJWs/ANTIFA types dominating the future. However I also REALLY don't want the Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi morons dominating, either. We're pretty much living in a lose-lose situation in the 2010s, in this whole SJW-Alt Right conflict. Everything seems geared towards extremism right now. I was hoping that things would cool down in the 2020s, but I'm not too sure. It's possible this culture war will intensify in the 2020s (at least in the early 2020s).

My thoughts have led me to believe that whatever change is going to happen is probably scripted already. Progressive reforms will continue, and so much so that the federal state with their corporate buddies will be quite eager to use it more and more for their interests, as they have been doing for ever. As such, the 90 years of state expansion will continue, no Donald Trumps, Ron Pauls, Gary Johnsons, whoever, will be able to truly fight it, and they themselves are often (as with Trump and Johnson) too compromising and stupid to be able to even do much if they were elected, and let's say that by the end of his term Trump does reduce the size of the federal state? The next guy's going to undo it all and add more. The liberals and conservatives get their little happy hour for a bit, thinking there's this "Right wing resurgence!", but ultimately it will amount to nothing, and if it'd ever will, the CIA would just assassinate the candidate in secret and we wouldn't be able to find out for decades.

The neocons and social democrats (fascists in my eyes, and their views are so similar as well) will always be on top, with hordes of progressives and communists, some centrists increasing their numbers and support as the "good guys" and wildly stupid Neo-Nazis, Christians, rednecks and stereotypical libertarians ("Who are totally the same as Nazis guys!" You won't believe how often I see that...thought control's working...) acting as the antagonists to help them move along by sowing divisions and gaining supporters for every single time they will want to expand their power. It's all been scripted. Change'll move a little more rapidly for now, as the cycle'll go, and most of it on both sides has been perfectly calculated for maximum control. There is not much organic protest anymore to me, all fake and calculated for power grabbing for one side...

That's just my thoughts on this "change".

I think we're living in a time of a great social change. Not as changeful as the 1960s but changeful nonetheless. At around 2016/2017 when Trump got elected is felt like it lost steam but by the #MeToo happened we found out there was still some gas left in this baby.

the CIA would just assassinate the candidate in secret and we wouldn't be able to find out for decades.


Wut

Martin Luther King observed that the arc of history bends toward justice.  I think he was absolutely right.  Listen to how Bob Dylan put it in his tune with the same title

My thoughts have led me to believe that whatever change is going to happen is probably scripted already. Progressive reforms will continue, and so much so that the federal state with their corporate buddies will be quite eager to use it more and more for their interests, as they have been doing for ever. As such, the 90 years of state expansion will continue, no Donald Trumps, Ron Pauls, Gary Johnsons, whoever, will be able to truly fight it, and they themselves are often (as with Trump and Johnson) too compromising and stupid to be able to even do much if they were elected, and let's say that by the end of his term Trump does reduce the size of the federal state? The next guy's going to undo it all and add more. The liberals and conservatives get their little happy hour for a bit, thinking there's this "Right wing resurgence!", but ultimately it will amount to nothing, and if it'd ever will, the CIA would just assassinate the candidate in secret and we wouldn't be able to find out for decades.

The neocons and social democrats (fascists in my eyes, and their views are so similar as well) will always be on top, with hordes of progressives and communists, some centrists increasing their numbers and support as the "good guys" and wildly stupid Neo-Nazis, Christians, rednecks and stereotypical libertarians ("Who are totally the same as Nazis guys!" You won't believe how often I see that...thought control's working...) acting as the antagonists to help them move along by sowing divisions and gaining supporters for every single time they will want to expand their power. It's all been scripted. Change'll move a little more rapidly for now, as the cycle'll go, and most of it on both sides has been perfectly calculated for maximum control. There is not much organic protest anymore to me, all fake and calculated for power grabbing for one side...

That's just my thoughts on this "change".

Yeah I think it will get more progressive but I agree with you it is scripted and controlled. The people on the higher up are playing people like fiddles and everyone is falling for it. Very few free thinkers around they are just choosing sides and groups now.

Yeah I think it will get more progressive but I agree with you it is scripted and controlled. The people on the higher up are playing people like fiddles and everyone is falling for it. Very few free thinkers around they are just choosing sides and groups now.


Please don't call conspiracy theorists "freethinkers", those are two different things  :-X

Please don't call conspiracy theorists "freethinkers", those are two different things  :-X

It's not about conspiracies. Not choosing a side like the right or the left and just thinking on your own is what free thinking is about. But I'm not saying it's bad if you choose a side I'm just saying I wish more people wiggled their way out of the classic political spectrum. I admire folks whether they are conspiracy theorists or not who claim both the right and left are wrong.  :P

It's not about conspiracies. Not choosing a side like the right or the left and just thinking on your own is what free thinking is about. But I'm not saying it's bad if you choose a side I'm just saying I wish more people wiggled their way out of the classic political spectrum. I admire folks whether they are conspiracy theorists or not who claim both the right and left are wrong.  :P


But isn't that assuming that both are wrong?  Please tell me exactly what you think the right and the left stand for.  They are NOT the same by any means.  I'll say no more, except to AS"s assertion re the CIA assassinating people and no one knows.  They certainly have tried.  Look at all the times they tried to kill Castro, and FAILED.  They are not very good at it.  And they only do it on orders from the executive branch

But isn't that assuming that both are wrong?  Please tell me exactly what you think the right and the left stand for.  They are NOT the same by any means.


Agreed! Some people often equate the "far-left" with the "far-right" and they are by no means similar.  One is fighting for equal rights while the other is advocating for an evangelical-christian white ethnostate. 

But more on the topic at hand, I find that the Left's response to the recent shooting has garnered more popularity than the Right's response.  After all, this is one of the few mass shootings where we know more about the survivors than the shooter (mostly).  I've studied social movements, and the combo of #BLM, #MeToo, and the recent anger over Parkland, I do believe we will see this "Era" as beginnings of a new wave of social change– and my hopes are it goes in a very Left direction (I'm from LA but live in SF lol soo).  ::)

But isn't that assuming that both are wrong?  Please tell me exactly what you think the right and the left stand for.  They are NOT the same by any means.  I'll say no more, except to AS"s assertion re the CIA assassinating people and no one knows.  They certainly have tried.  Look at all the times they tried to kill Castro, and FAILED.  They are not very good at it.  And they only do it on orders from the executive branch

On paper, if we strictly say the far left is for human rights and the far right oppresses rights, sure. But in general both groups are bad to be associated with in the end imo.

Agreed! Some people often equate the "far-left" with the "far-right" and they are by no means similar.  One is fighting for equal rights while the other is advocating for an evangelical-christian white ethnostate. 

Not necessarily. The far left is against freedom of speech and religious thought and expression as well. It's not black and white. As for the far right, Christianity has nothing today with right wing politics I have no idea where you get that idea from. Right wingers are about protecting personal property, lower taxes, higher military spending, pro-gun, etc. None of that has anything to do with Christianity.

Not necessarily. The far left is against freedom of speech and religious through and expression as well. It's not black and white. As for the far right, Christianity has nothing today with right wing politics I have no idea where you get that idea from. Right wingers are about protecting personal property, lower taxes, higher military spending, pro-gun, etc. None of that has anything to do with Christianity.


I see it as a pillar but we can disagree :)

Not necessarily. The far left is against freedom of speech and religious thought and expression as well. It's not black and white. As for the far right, Christianity has nothing today with right wing politics I have no idea where you get that idea from. Right wingers are about protecting personal property, lower taxes, higher military spending, pro-gun, etc. None of that has anything to do with Christianity.


Dude, you're either living under a rock or you're deluding yourself.

But isn't that assuming that both are wrong?  Please tell me exactly what you think the right and the left stand for.  They are NOT the same by any means.  I'll say no more, except to AS"s assertion re the CIA assassinating people and no one knows.  They certainly have tried.  Look at all the times they tried to kill Castro, and FAILED.  They are not very good at it.  And they only do it on orders from the executive branch


But Carlos, a handful of people controlling the thoughts and actions of 7 billion people sounds like a rather simple thing to do. I mean, even a baby can do that with their eyes closed? What are you going to say next? That the Earth is round??

Dude, you're either living under a rock or you're deluding yourself.

Nope, I am not. I know a lot about Christianity and it has nothing to do with right wing politics. Right wingers just use it as a convenient tool to get some Christians to follow their rhetoric, even if the views are not Christ-like at all.

Nope, I am not. I know a lot about Christianity and it has nothing to do with right wing politics. Right wingers just use it as a convenient tool to get some Christians to follow their rhetoric, even if the views are not Christ-like at all.


Right wingers in North America tend to use Christianity because they believe in Christianity. Maybe not your version, but they believe in a form of it. You aren't some special snowflake Christian who follows the "true Christianity". Look, as far as I'm concerned, there's a bible verse to bend into advocating anything you want.

Right wingers in North America tend to use Christianity because they believe in Christianity. Maybe not your version, but they believe in a form of it. You aren't some special snowflake Christian who follows the "true Christianity". Look, as far as I'm concerned, there's a bible verse to bend into advocating anything you want.

I'm not Christian, when did I say I was?  ??? I just know that right wing does not equal Christian. For the reasons I stated and the reasons someone else stated about the republican party. Right wing is a political label, and it has nothing to do with Christianity. The bible doesn't say one needs to be right wing or belong to a group. I know a lot about that from studying religions and political systems, they are not the same and it is not a special version it is completely separate and one has nothing to do with another. There's only one kind of Christianity, not multiple versions. Right wingers do not believe in Christianity because their values are not Christian at all, being pro-gun, pro-white, and pro-death penalty are not Christian concepts at all. Christians generally don't use political labels whether they lean one way or another, some may (just as some Christians may be left wing) but the point is that right wingers have nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, nice buzzword. "Special snowflake"?  ???

I'm not Christian, when did I say I was?  ??? I just know that right wing does not equal Christian. For the reasons I stated and the reasons someone else stated about the republican party. Right wing is a political label, and it has nothing to do with Christianity. The bible doesn't say one needs to be right wing or belong to a group. I know a lot about that from studying religions and political systems, they are not the same and it is not a special version it is completely separate and one has nothing to do with another. There's only one kind of Christianity, not multiple versions. Right wingers do not believe in Christianity because their values are not Christian at all, being pro-gun, pro-white, and pro-death penalty are not Christian concepts at all. Christians generally don't use political labels whether they lean one way or another, some may (just as some Christians may be left wing) but the point is that right wingers have nothing to do with Christianity.

Also, nice buzzword. "Special snowflake"?  ???


I have to disagree with you on this.  The "Christian" sects that emerged from Luther/Calvin theology (predestination, the elect etc)  were and are decidedly political, which is to say that they have, from the beginning, advocated theocracy, not the separation of church and state.  In origin the aim was to free themselves from, and assume for themselves, the power of Rome.  Now the aim is to limit the power of the secular state by enforcing their own "morality" by using the  state to limit the freedom of those who don't follow their "brand" of "Christianity".  This makes the case better than I can:

Faith, Trump and election — and where we go now
On Faith

Rutland Herald | February 24, 2018
John NASSIVERA

Last week a new book, sure to be a strong seller, was published with the title “The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography” (New York: HarperCollins). The authors are David Brody, who is chief political corespondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, and Scott Lamb, who is a Southern Baptist minister and vice president of televangelist Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, currently run by Jerry Falwell, Jr. It is accurate to say that Brody and Lamb are well-established spokesmen for the American evangelical movement. HarperCollins, not incidentally, is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. With an apt biblical flourish, one might say that we have the four horsemen of the apocalypse — CBN, Liberty University, News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch — all galloping together in the creation of this “spiritual biography” of our sitting president. The power of these four to shape American public opinion cannot be disputed. This book has a huge amount of firepower behind it.

All the more reason to speak up and speak out. “The Faith of Donald J. Trump” is a deeply disturbing book on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. That said, however, I’ll begin with Luther and Calvin, since that’s where Brody and Lamb place the origin of Trump’s (and their) faith.

You cannot talk about Luther and Calvin for very long without getting into their strong convictions regarding predestination and “unconditional election.” This is a different use of the word “election,” and it is only indirectly related to politics. In this context “election” is a religious term that refers to a doctrine, especially strong in Calvinism, which states that God has chosen those who are the “elect” to be saved since the beginning of time (predestination), and salvation is by “election” and “by faith alone,” granted solely by the grace of God. God makes use of his people to accomplish his will, and we are all clay in his hands. This was a major tenet in the Protestant Reformation, and it remains a major tenet in American evangelical Christianity today.

Brody and Lamb, again and again, in many different permutations, state that Trump is one of the “elect” chosen by God to accomplish his plan for America and the world — the Middle East, Afghanistan and Israel very much come into play. They also, in a typical apologist fashion, are willing to admit that Trump has his flaws. But this is not a problem, since in their way of thinking God often uses imperfect vessels to fill the world with his will.

If it sounds like circular reasoning that results in always being in a position where you can’t lose, you’re right. Once you have convinced yourself that you and your associates, leaders and heroes are members of “the elect,” you and they can do no wrong. If other people think you are wrong, that is simply the price you have to pay for being of the elect and chosen by God to do his work in the world.

This is why this form of religion is so dangerous to society and society’s government. Most of us never knew, or have forgotten, that Luther and Calvin were very much wrapped up the politics of their own day. The powerful secular ruler who held the role of the elector of Saxony became Luther’s main supporter and protector. The secular rulers in Germany were tired of having to put up with attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to limit their powers. Calvin, somewhat later, actually set up his own completely theocratic form of government in Geneva. The Calvinist Pilgrims came to America in no small part because they wanted to set up their own theocratic government, separate from Rome or secular rulers.

Too many of us still think that America was first founded by people who wanted to separate church from state. That was not the case, and the first 100 years of life on our shores were hounded by religious fanatics of many sorts who very much wanted to (and did) merge religion with secular power. In fact, this has been a major theme in Protestantism since the earliest days of the Reformation. It wasn’t until the late 1700s, after the American Revolution, that our Founding Fathers realized the deadly pitfalls of merging religion with state power — and that is why there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, there are still those — especially within the American evangelical movement — who want to return to the mythic good old days “when we were a Protestant Christian nation.” Modern evangelical Christianity is the direct descendant of Calvinism, as countless historians of religion have correctly pointed out. It is no accident that Trump’s die-hard evangelical supporters will not falter in their support for him. They are convinced — as Brody and Lamb gleefully affirm in their book — that Trump and the Protestant Calvinist tradition from which he comes are all part of “the elect” carrying out God’s will.

I hate to say it, but everyone should read this book. This is the best display of the magnitude of the problem our country is facing that I have read in a long time. Our country is now face to face with a contradiction that has been at the heart of our identity since the 1600s: Are we to be a nation based on a Calvinist church-merged-with-state model, or are we to be a nation committed to religious freedom and committed to the separation of church and state? At the moment, Trump’s staunchest supporters are giving him a blanket permission for all his actions — precisely because they hold that he is a chosen one and the most important of God’s elect.

It is ironic to an extreme that Donald Trump should be the man who brings this crisis of conscience to a head. I’m not even sure that he realizes the degree to which he is at the center of what is actually a religious battle — he’s never been especially religious himself. This is a time when we must be vigilant because, make no mistake, the very soul of America is at stake.

John Nassivera is a former professor who retains affiliation with Columbia University’s Society of Fellows in the Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part-time in Mexico.

I have to disagree with you on this.  The "Christian" sects that emerged from Luther/Calvin theology (predestination, the elect etc)  were and are decidedly political, which is to say that they have, from the beginning, advocated theocracy, not the separation of church and state.  In origin the aim was to free themselves from, and assume for themselves, the power of Rome.  Now the aim is to limit the power of the secular state by enforcing their own "morality" by using the  state to limit the freedom of those who don't follow their "brand" of "Christianity".  This makes the case better than I can:

Faith, Trump and election — and where we go now
On Faith

Rutland Herald | February 24, 2018
John NASSIVERA

Last week a new book, sure to be a strong seller, was published with the title “The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography” (New York: HarperCollins). The authors are David Brody, who is chief political corespondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, and Scott Lamb, who is a Southern Baptist minister and vice president of televangelist Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, currently run by Jerry Falwell, Jr. It is accurate to say that Brody and Lamb are well-established spokesmen for the American evangelical movement. HarperCollins, not incidentally, is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. With an apt biblical flourish, one might say that we have the four horsemen of the apocalypse — CBN, Liberty University, News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch — all galloping together in the creation of this “spiritual biography” of our sitting president. The power of these four to shape American public opinion cannot be disputed. This book has a huge amount of firepower behind it.

All the more reason to speak up and speak out. “The Faith of Donald J. Trump” is a deeply disturbing book on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. That said, however, I’ll begin with Luther and Calvin, since that’s where Brody and Lamb place the origin of Trump’s (and their) faith.

You cannot talk about Luther and Calvin for very long without getting into their strong convictions regarding predestination and “unconditional election.” This is a different use of the word “election,” and it is only indirectly related to politics. In this context “election” is a religious term that refers to a doctrine, especially strong in Calvinism, which states that God has chosen those who are the “elect” to be saved since the beginning of time (predestination), and salvation is by “election” and “by faith alone,” granted solely by the grace of God. God makes use of his people to accomplish his will, and we are all clay in his hands. This was a major tenet in the Protestant Reformation, and it remains a major tenet in American evangelical Christianity today.

Brody and Lamb, again and again, in many different permutations, state that Trump is one of the “elect” chosen by God to accomplish his plan for America and the world — the Middle East, Afghanistan and Israel very much come into play. They also, in a typical apologist fashion, are willing to admit that Trump has his flaws. But this is not a problem, since in their way of thinking God often uses imperfect vessels to fill the world with his will.

If it sounds like circular reasoning that results in always being in a position where you can’t lose, you’re right. Once you have convinced yourself that you and your associates, leaders and heroes are members of “the elect,” you and they can do no wrong. If other people think you are wrong, that is simply the price you have to pay for being of the elect and chosen by God to do his work in the world.

This is why this form of religion is so dangerous to society and society’s government. Most of us never knew, or have forgotten, that Luther and Calvin were very much wrapped up the politics of their own day. The powerful secular ruler who held the role of the elector of Saxony became Luther’s main supporter and protector. The secular rulers in Germany were tired of having to put up with attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to limit their powers. Calvin, somewhat later, actually set up his own completely theocratic form of government in Geneva. The Calvinist Pilgrims came to America in no small part because they wanted to set up their own theocratic government, separate from Rome or secular rulers.

Too many of us still think that America was first founded by people who wanted to separate church from state. That was not the case, and the first 100 years of life on our shores were hounded by religious fanatics of many sorts who very much wanted to (and did) merge religion with secular power. In fact, this has been a major theme in Protestantism since the earliest days of the Reformation. It wasn’t until the late 1700s, after the American Revolution, that our Founding Fathers realized the deadly pitfalls of merging religion with state power — and that is why there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, there are still those — especially within the American evangelical movement — who want to return to the mythic good old days “when we were a Protestant Christian nation.” Modern evangelical Christianity is the direct descendant of Calvinism, as countless historians of religion have correctly pointed out. It is no accident that Trump’s die-hard evangelical supporters will not falter in their support for him. They are convinced — as Brody and Lamb gleefully affirm in their book — that Trump and the Protestant Calvinist tradition from which he comes are all part of “the elect” carrying out God’s will.

I hate to say it, but everyone should read this book. This is the best display of the magnitude of the problem our country is facing that I have read in a long time. Our country is now face to face with a contradiction that has been at the heart of our identity since the 1600s: Are we to be a nation based on a Calvinist church-merged-with-state model, or are we to be a nation committed to religious freedom and committed to the separation of church and state? At the moment, Trump’s staunchest supporters are giving him a blanket permission for all his actions — precisely because they hold that he is a chosen one and the most important of God’s elect.

It is ironic to an extreme that Donald Trump should be the man who brings this crisis of conscience to a head. I’m not even sure that he realizes the degree to which he is at the center of what is actually a religious battle — he’s never been especially religious himself. This is a time when we must be vigilant because, make no mistake, the very soul of America is at stake.

John Nassivera is a former professor who retains affiliation with Columbia University’s Society of Fellows in the Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part-time in Mexico.

We can agree to disagree. I do not believe it has anything to do with Christianity. The bible never says to be pro-gun and to protect corporations through lower taxes. It is a common misconception. It's all fake and they are throwing in some Christian ideas to make it look appealing but it is NOT Christian and racism and being pro-white have nothing to do with Christianity and that's a fact. The concept of nations is biblical, but white pride nationalism is not. That is simply a fact that these right wingers made up and said they are Christian when in reality it is not Christ-like. The right wing movement is different from Christianity. Now enough political talk let's get back to decadeology.  ;D ;D ;D 

We can agree to disagree. I do not believe it has anything to do with Christianity. The bible never says to be pro-gun and to protect corporations through lower taxes. It is a common misconception. It's all fake and they are throwing in some Christian ideas to make it look appealing but it is NOT Christian and racism and being pro-white have nothing to do with Christianity and that's a fact. The concept of nations is biblical, but white pride nationalism is not. That is simply a fact that these right wingers made up and said they are Christian when in reality it is not Christ-like. The right wing movement is different from Christianity. Now enough political talk let's get back to decadeology.  ;D ;D ;D


We are splitting hairs.  I totally agree with you that what the "Christian right" is doing has no relationship to "true" Christianity, but don't tell them that, and it is they that we are forced to deal with.  Whatever we might think of them they believe themselves to be the bearers of true Christianity and true morality, and want to force the rest of us into their mold.  And they want to control the state in order to do so.  I have no problem  tolerating their beliefs, my problem is that they want to force those beliefs on the rest of us.